17
Are the UK and China Authoritarian? (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've often heard that China is authoritarian, particularly due to events like the suppression of student protests in Hong Kong. However, I'm curious about more recent examples. Conversely, I've been hearing about the UK's Online Safety Act being used to target Wikipedia editors and silence protests, which raises questions about authoritarian tendencies there as well. What specific examples do you have that demonstrate whether these countries are authoritarian or not?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 1 year ago (12 children)

One is a quickly developing powerhouse.

The other is a democracy. It’s main opposition party had promised to allow porn again and is wildly successful

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 12 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Is it really a democracy when people want something, sign a petition and get dismissed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    It is a democracy, yes.

    The government is elected to represent its people. Annoying to us as it is, a tiny percentage of people [1] signing an online petition does not represent the people. There are an awful lot who think this new law is a good thing. [2]

    [1] Yes. Fight me on this. 404k signatures out of 70million population = 0.58% opposed this enough to sign it.

    [2] Mostly parents imo, and people who don't understand the significant fraud risk involved. Those who haven't been impacted yet, and those who enjoy other people being upset. Yes, I think this is a stupid law and the methods used even worse, but that doesn't stop a democracy being a democracy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You can actually use syntax for your references, btw. Lemmy has that functionality (though I can never remember it).

    Either way, the UK is a democracy purely for the bourgeoisie, the proletariat isn't given legitimate control over the politcal process. It's a bourgeois dictatorship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yes: As long as people can vote, kick the other government out, and replace it with worse, maybe better.

    I think where the confusion lies at, is the very definition of democracy. Democracy does not mean good governance or even particularly fair treatment. It had nothing to do with socialism or helping the disadvantaged. It simply means it can be replaced using voting.

    I think the democracies of the west are overhyped oligarchies; but they are democracies

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Democracy for the bourgeoisie is not democracy for the whole of society. If the bourgeoisie is in control of who and what the proletariat can vote on, it's more theatrics than democracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yes, as practiced it’s mostly theatrics and the working class does not take power due to many controls and mental conditioning.

    Democracy gives the illusion of control.

    But many of these countries are by definition democracies

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't really agree. Most definitions of democracy center the majority, or the people, as the source of political power. I'd agree if you were talking about voting, but we are talking about democracy overall.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Historically, democracy only allowed free males who were land owners to vote. A minority.

    In the last few generations the wealthy have come up with clever ideas to hold onto power while expanding the vote to the majority.

    So, I think Democracy is defined by periodically changing some of the government by the voting of some people. And the votes must be counted in front of witnesses.

    This is my definition of democracy only; and not me arguing for it, personally I don’t think it works well enough

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 13 points 1 year ago*

    Democracy broadly refers to a system of government where ultimate power rests with the people. I don’t believe it’s solely about voting; rather, it’s about whether people perceive that they are being represented by the government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent