tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post7067017987374787375..comments2023-10-24T02:31:18.905-07:00Comments on insufficient respect: Islamist 'majoritarianism': could dishonesty about Egypt do harm in Syria?Michael Neumannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01558892758943318577noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-51052899828262099762014-07-21T12:30:03.227-07:002014-07-21T12:30:03.227-07:00Though there must have been times when the America...<i> Though there must have been times when the American electorate joyously endorsed liberal legislation, I can't think of a single instance.* </i><br /><br />Absolutely just recently. 3 states voted by popular referendum to allow gay marriage: <br />Maine (Dec. 29, 2012), Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013), Washington (Dec. 9, 2012) <br /><br />8 more states have voted in their legislature to allow gay marriage with strong popular support: Delaware (July 1, 2013), Hawaii (Dec. 2, 2013), Illinois (June 1, 2014), Minnesota (Aug. 1, 2013), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (July 24, 2011), Rhode Island (Aug. 1, 2013), Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009).<br /><br />I can think of plenty more examples but that certainly serves as one. <br /><br />___<br /><br />As for the rest I think I've defined the distinction between majoritarian and Democratic quite well. Democracy is a proposal for people to resolve disputes about how to govern society through an open system of debate and discussion leading towards broad consensus as much as possible. Majoritarianism is a wing of the country simply imposing policies on the rest with no interest in consensus. They aren't remotely the same form of government even if the majoritarian system allows for occasional voting.<br /><br />You keep trying to define majoritarianism as democracy. They are not the same thing. Hitler's Germany wasn't democratic even though it enjoyed broad majority for its policies (i.e it was majoritarian). Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 probably did not enjoy majority support but was democratic. <br /><br />In particular the issue with the Muslim Brotherhood was never that their policies were bad but that they attempted to permanently intrench those policies by passing a constitution with a simple majority that then took 2/3rds to overrule. A constitution by its very nature requires vastly more than a majority as we talked about at the time. A simple majority does not have the right to create or amend a constitution. A simple majority might have the right (though it should be rarely exercised) to pass interim law in line with the constitution. By attempting to impose a constitution the Muslim Brotherhood ceased to have democratic legitimacy and therefore could be rightfully be displaced. The way an employee who embezzles can be rightfully fired before the term of their contract has expired. <br />CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.com