Does democracy mean something else to you? I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with democracy. Or Vice versa.
I’ve seen that alot.
People like to talk about good and inclusive as if they aren't universal values. Good is a value in every culture and religion; it's human nature; we aren't sociopaths. Just off the top of my head, there's the fundamentals of the Bible, 'love they neighbor, love thy god'. There's the Mandate of Heaven in Imperial China, which said only a good ruler keeps heaven's mandate and thus their power.
Inclusive is not only part of good, it's necessary to democracy: It requires respecting the votes and believing in the rights of everyone, and practically, freedom requires respecting your neighbor.
The question is, why work so hard to undermine good, including inclusiveness, democracy, and human rights? What an incredible heritage we've been given; what an optimistic history and what opportunity we have to build something even more amazing for the next generation. It takes an very cynical politics to try to undermine that - to give that up for yourself, for an entire generation, for our descendants. People from Washington to Lincoln to Churchill to Gandhi to MLK to all those who have died and struggled in service have worked to bequeath to us our free and good, in large part, society. With everything we've been given, what will we bequeath? Hate, authoritarianism, and climate change? What a shame our generation would be, among the others, if that was what we produced. The question is, what can we accomplish?
Constitutions provide inclusiveness, constitutions are not unique to any system of governance, and can be the basis for any form of governance
Collaboration with the people willing to abide by the system isn’t unique to any system of governance, and is required by all systems
Democracy is just rule by majority
It's not, by any meaningful definition, and not how people who study it think about it. Democracy's are rule by majority and, just as essentially, protection of minority rights. You need both or you have nothing. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is the best known example.
Authoritarian dictatorships and single party countries have constitutions that give the same guarantees as seen in the Bill of Rights and other areas of the US Constitution
You are conflating the definition of democracy with ideals you were taught to respect. This is indoctrination by definition of accepting a set of beliefs uncritically.
Instead of trying to argue that point or differences between constitutional countries, you could just drop your expanded definition of democracy in favor of the rule by majority one.
academics in democracies are viewing it uncritically too. democracy doesn't mean anything related to limitations of the government or a form of inclusivity that aspires to enfranchise everyone. it means rule of the eligible voting majority, just like when all states in the United States only allowed male land owners of Northwestern European descent vote, that was a democracy. All tweaks are adjectives, such as representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, etc.
I'm not responding to the pending questions you generated because they are aspirations from completely left field, used to support your warped aspiration view of a form of governance that has no specific name, that you dream of as right and correct which you also consider a non-existent inclusive democracy to be. I am just hoping you try to explain your view so that you see that on a standardized test, my answer would be the "more correct" choice than your. If you chose your own answer you would get points off.
The newest definition I’m aware of is “the original 51% attack”
The referendum wasn't on noise or the legality of minarets broadcasting sound though, it was on the structures themselves. Churches can still build steeples (or even noisy belltowers). I fail to see why the simple construction of a minaret harms anyone any more than say a steeple of a church of a different denomination. If anything it just seems like legislation to tell Muslims that they are not welcome in Switzerland.
I think it is exactly that and this should be their right.
Minarets do not build themselves. There would be very possibly some money and influence involved from countries that do not share Swiss people values.
But then why not address that by banning foreign funding of construction of religious buildings? If Swiss Muslims want to build a minaret on their mosque I personally don't see the harm. But it's clear that others disagree.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: if you could please stop creating accounts like this and definitely stop creating accounts to break the site rules with, we'd be grateful.
But women weren't allowed to vote (in every canton) until 1991. There is a ban on new minarets being constructed (but not other tall buildings). The anti-immigration referendum couldn't be implemented as would have led to dramatic consequences for Switzerland's relationship with the EU.
From an outside perspective even Switzerland doesn't seem like a "true" democracy.