Technology

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] sadTruth@lemmy.hogru.ch 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Is it a representative democracy with secrecy laws? Then no.

There is no democracy on this planet because all democracies are representative democracies. In representative democracies the politicians are not representative of the people, but they promise to do things a certain way, and if people elect them for it, that’s like indirect representation. However this breaks down as soon as secrecy laws are put in place, because if the government or private companies can decide which knowledge will reach the people, and which will not, they will simply declare information that will upset their voters to be secret. This breaks all representative democracies.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

People are voted here for the person there are or for their idea's on certain subject or whatever somebody chooses to make their vote. Everybody can enlist themselves to be voted on different levels on the politic spectrum. Heck, it is even is a spectrum instead of a 2 or 3 party system.

A lot of what is done in the government is transparent and open for the public to read/see, a lot of our justice system is publicly available as well (except certain cases regarding children).

Most companies have to be transparent at least on a financial level and most of the bigger once also on other levels.

Our politic system is far from ideal though: https://www.democratiemonitor.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Democratie-Monitor-2025.pdf

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] sadTruth@lemmy.hogru.ch 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Let's say i put myself out there and say people should vote for me if they want world peace.
Let's assume the people vote for me, because they want world peace.
Now that i am elected, a lobbyist from a arms company visits me and asks me to grant them an export license to sell weapons to an agressor (let's assume i have the right to sign such deals).

Are there laws in place that allow me to prevent my voters from finding out that i granted that export license, like a law that says i don't need to report publicly that i signed this? Or maybe even a law that prevents journalists from reporting on this even if they find out, because the contract (or it's contents) are considered secret and publishing it would be illegal?

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We have a lot of registers and depending on the licence the company or person receives it will be made public. Things like building changes, export of live animals etc. You can look some up over here: https://www.nvwa.nl/onderwerpen/erkenningen-registraties-en-vergunningen/overzicht-bedrijven-met-erkenningen-registraties-en-vergunningen

Weapon licences go through the police instead of the government itself https://www.justis.nl/producten/wet-wapens-en-munitie/een-ontheffing-op-de-wet-wapens-en-munitie-aanvragen-bij-justis the office of justice needs to sign it off it seems.

So it just works differently, if you would want to pass a law that changes how those licences are signed, it would be known, and you wouldn't be the person signing it. The office of justice would be, and probably it is checked multiple times before it even gets there that it isn't financing terrorism or something which is illegal according to the WWFT and some other laws.

Pretty sure a journalist is allowed to write about anything and everything https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/media-en-publieke-omroep/persvrijheid-bewaken there are probably some exceptions on things like kids etc, but a public spokesperson doesn't have that anyway.

This law goes on about the open government: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0045754/2025-07-01 And there are multiple parties who try and keep businesses somewhat in check (like accountants, the fiod, etc.)

So if you would try and pull this off in The Netherlands you would have a hard time doing it and I doubt you can do it without somebody being a whistleblower.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] sadTruth@lemmy.hogru.ch 2 points 1 year ago

Here in Germany there are constantly scandals where politicians sign off illegal deals with the industry, and when the word get's out, the contract is kept secret to minimize the damage to reputation. Whistleblowers are hunted and politicians that did blatantly illegal things are protected under "immunity".

parent

[–] sadTruth@lemmy.hogru.ch 2 points 1 year ago

In that case i'll give the Netherlands the title of actual democracy. Let's hope it lasts for a long time.

parent

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Representative democracy is a type of democracy. You're not doing anyone any favors by conflating "direct democracy" and "democracy".

Though somehow, I feel like you know exactly what you're doing...

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] sadTruth@lemmy.hogru.ch 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For me democracy means rule of the people.
Of course you can define words as you want, and say that only direct democracy is rule of the people, while representative democracy can be oligarchy dressed as democracy, but for me using such a definition makes the word democracy meaningless and undesirable.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Yeah, this is me defining words, and not established definitions that have literally been in use for hundreds of years 🙄

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] sadTruth@lemmy.hogru.ch 0 points 1 year ago

In political science, the term polyarchy (poly "many", arkhe "rule") was used by Robert A. Dahl to describe a form of government in which power is invested in multiple people. It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. This form of government was first implemented in the United States and France and gradually adopted by other countries. Polyarchy is different from democracy, according to Dahl, because the fundamental democratic principle is "the continuing responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals" with unimpaired opportunities. A polyarchy is a form of government that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle.

So yeah, you are right. A representative "democracy" is not a democracy. It's a monarchy with more than one ruler.
A gummy bear is as much a bear as representative democracy is a democracy.

I didn't know that, because i was taught in school that a representative "democracy" is a form of democracy. And the name makes it sound like one. But it isn't. It's not even supposed to be in theory. I am sure 99% of people living in a representative "democracy" don't know this.

I hereby encourage everyone to abandon the word representative "democracy" in favor of polyarchy or maybe oligarchy. This makes it much clearer what we are talking about.

Also i doubt the authors of this article know this, because they imply that representative "democracy" is desirable, but it is obviously undesirable.