How? If anything it looks like it's becoming populist which is the opposite of not democracy.
That's not to delegitimize your position which is that it does not reflect your vision of what a democracy should look like.
That's not to delegitimize your position which is that it does not reflect your vision of what a democracy should look like.
The definition of democracy varies, but if we use the regular definition of "liberal democracy" (a.k.a. western democracy) which is what we are used to define democracy as in the west, then it requires not only free and fair elections but also separation or power, and an informed public with free press.
Going from a liberal democracy into something else is unfortunately quite easy.
Step one is usually to suppress the free press, step 2 is attacking the judiciary and changing the constitution e.g. to control courts, give more power to the executive.
Populism is usually just a vehicle for this slow coup.
One might of course argue that "western democracy" isn't superior to other forms of democracy (or non-democracy) but that's a separate discussion. Both Poland and Turkey had liberal/western democracy to some extent, and are losing it to something else.
If those 5 are all pro govt (either by choice or persuation) then it's even worse.
But press would be considered free if anyone could start a 6th outlet without being pressured to stop - and the cost of starting one is not relevant for that really.
It's the beginnings of Gleichschaltung.
They're undermining both free media and the justice system. How would you call that?
Germany kerbs free speech in many ways vis a vis the US, but we don't call them undemocratic --they followed protocol and it's their version --not a version I'd prefer, but still not undemocratic.
The problem with Polands move is that the legislative tries to control the judiciary, a thing that goes against the very definition of a free democracy.
Similar in Turkey. The AKP controls not only the legislative without any real opposition, they also inoficially control the judiciary and the executive. Since all critical journalists get put in prison, the Press is also opressed.
Once these changes are in place, and the division of power and free press is gone - the goal is open to move much faster. That's why it's so alarming in Poland/Turkey even though Venezuela is much worse already. Liberal democracy is brittle, and it can still be saved in Poland/Turkey. In Venezuela it has to be built.
My guess is that many here say "democratic" and mean "a system that will guarantee one respect as per John Rawls' veil of ignorance [0]". A parliamentary democracy with clear separation between legislative, executive and judiciary seems to be the lease bad solution humanity has been able to come up with for now.
Venezuela, Turkey and Poland are just recent highlights of how vulnerable parliamentary democracy is...
Most liberal democracies have freedom of speech even though they have laws against libel/slander/hate speech and so on.
Next you go on to say that countries without freedom of speech are autocracies in disguise - implying Germany is an autocracy... not sure what to make of that. Are you implying that e.g either you live in a democracy and you can hate-speak, or you don't live in a democracy?
From the last paragraph I get the feeling you live in re US and take great pride in it being a true democracy because of its lack of hate speech laws (libel/slander laws exist). I wouldn't worry so much about politicians being able to limit hate speech in a place where elected officials draw the election district lines, effectively choosing their voters, where entire groups of citizens (such as prison inmates) can't vote at all, and where the executive branch of government doesn't have popular support even on Election Day.
I'm no fan of hate speech laws myself, but I consider it quite useless to define democracy as not being able to coexist with them.
That limits free speech. It's not hateful but it's political.
That fact aside, it's certainly problematic to have laws against insulting a foreign leader (Erdogan in this case). It must be noted of course that this particular type of insult (e.g calling someone a child molester) is probably enough for accusations of libel/slander in other countries as well, whether or not they have that odd "foreign leader" paragraph Germany has.
I think adults should be able to say/hear what they want.
this is among the top examples of the populism: https://youtu.be/ZNN3FduaHQk?t=109
In essence people only like a kind of a democracy when it goes their way. In the US people complained the Hillary won the pop vote despite everyone knowing that only electoral college votes count (not popular/populism vote).
And people want the representative result when it is in their favor (most republicans today).
This might be a case of you guessing what a word means or projecting meaning to it.
Populisim is form of political rhetoric, demagogy that creates division between "common man" and the "elites". Common people are "pure and innocent" and the "elites" are evil. Populism is very anti-intellectual in its nature. Populist believes in the wisdom, or virtues of the common people. The message in populism is that things are very simple and gut level reactions are right. Populist rhetoric turns democracy into mob rule.
The main difference between populism and democracy is difference between before and after.
Working democracy is not just voting to express opinion or will. It requires institutions that make democratic decision making processes possible. Democratic decisions are result of many conflicting views going trough this process.
Populists try to undercut all these processes and institutions. they claim that there is already existing united and just "will of the people" they (the populists) already know. Democracy is just way to get it done. This is why populists try to 'streamline' democratic prosesses so that they can push their agenda.
Almost all dictators hold elections. If an elected official cracks down on dissent and imprisons his or her rivals, the government is no longer democratic, even if it's done with the people's consent.
True democracies require free and fair elections, protection of human rights, respect for pluralism, and equal treatment of all citizens under the law.
These are the values shared by the 70+ democratic governments that govern nearly half of the world's population.