- Joined
- Jul 14, 2012
- Messages
- 16,498
- Reaction score
- 8,165
- Location
- Montreal, QC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Why is that a problem? If people want a strong leader rather than the weak, ineffectual and un-responsive decision making of 'liberal democracy', then that's the point of democracy isn't it?
Otherwise your 'liberal democracy' becomes restricted to allowing people to choose whoever they want provided they are approved by the established elite? Which is of course less a democracy and more a sham choice between competing brands of the same thing, all of which perpetuate the interests of the broad establishment.
Far too many people assume that the preservation of 'liberal democracy' is an end in itself, which discounts the fact that millions of people do not benefit from the status quo, from the broad globalist corporate consensus which goes hand in hand with 'liberal democracy'.
You seem to be confusing democracy for mob rule, which is what populism promotes. In order for democracy to be an effective system of governance it needs checks and balances and respect for the rule of law and human rights and freedoms. What the people want may not be compatible with those ideals but ultimately society benefits in the end. Why do you think society is better off without those things?
For example look at Switzerland, quite possibly the most direct democracy in the world, but it is still has a robust system of checks and balances in place along with great respect for human rights and the rule of law. The populists have tried to change that but due to those checks they have not been able to. I am not saying it is perfect, it is far from it and produces some negative outcomes well but ultimately everyone benefits in the end, eventually.