News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The new authoritarianism by dragonwriter on Monday March 23, 2015 @02:12PM (#9252446)
> 200 years ago, there was no need for such things. Monarchy was considered a perfectly legitimate form of government. Voting was considered dangerous, and people often argued that democracy would be "mob rule" or "tyranny of the masses".

By 1815, even many monarchies had elections of some form.

> Consider the words of (19th century general) Santa Anna: "[The Mexican people] do not know what [liberty] is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one."

Yeah, but Santa Anna said that to justify his actions at replacing an federal representative system (which he himself had also been instrumental in creating) with a centralized dictatorship, an act which provoked much of the country to revolt with three breakaway republics declared, and a massive civil war.

So, in context, its not really support for the idea that people even at that time didn't see elections and democracy as important. Indeed, arguably, the results of things like Santa Anna's efforts are why later authoritarians often prefer at least an illusion of democratic accountability.

Re:The new authoritarianism by JimboOmega on Monday March 23, 2015 @02:34PM (#9252598)
Perhaps the timeframe of 200 years may have been a bit short - given that the French Revolution had just wrapped up, and despite the conservative victory, the idea of absolute monarchy was on the decline. If you want to pick the French Revolution as the point in time where the world (the Western world, anyway) started to really think that at least some form of election was necessary - I'd be willing to accept that. Though the monarchist victory in that war proved it was still holding sway, and it's very debatable.

Yes, Santa Anna was no saint, and clearly the Mexican people didn't think so much of abolishing the elections. The point of my using the quote, though, was to illustrate that in an international context saying "Elections are a bad idea for the people" was at least a vaguely reasonable thing to do at that point in history.

You don't usually see dictators today saying "The people can't handle elections; my enlightened rule is much better without the turbulence." Instead they say "Everyone loves me! I won the election with 99% of the vote!"

So I wonder - when did that change? Is it because the view of the people changed? I feel like it's more of an "international legitimacy" thing, like governments are supposed to represent the people.

Re:The new authoritarianism by dragonwriter on Monday March 23, 2015 @03:58PM (#9253017)
> So I wonder - when did that change?

Over a long period of time. It was the case in much of the world by the time 200 years ago that you point to, but its progressed further since (and was well established in some places long earlier.)

> Is it because the view of the people changed?

Yes. The single biggest factor in spreading this expectation was probably the British Empire and its global reach.