Political Parties

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Should certain parties be banned in a democracy?

Just a simple yes/no

[SeanAshi]

Germanys NPD..Yes!

[Sir Zach of R.]

Yes

[Luno]

Banning a far-right party does not solve any problem with racism. It just create more hate and anger and they will just move underground

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

But isent the whole point of democracy to allow people to elect the people that best represent their views?

[Lazy Lob]

Only the ones that "represent" the views or are the "political wing" of an active terrorist organisation with blood on its "hands".

[S'13]

But isent the whole point of democracy to allow people to elect the people that best represent their views?

Yet a democracy does have to defend itself and does so by banning anti democratic parties.

In Israel there is the example of Kach, a racist and anti democratic party that was outlawed.

[username]

No, I don't think they should be banned

If you believe in freedom of speech then you must accept that others have the right to free speech even if you don't agree with what they say.

[toki]

No, I don't think they should be banned

If you believe in freedom of speech then you must accept that others have the right to free speech even if you don't agree with what they say.

Freedom of speech and creating a political party is not the same thing.

Example:
When a party has the open intention to get rid of democracy, they could be banned. When the party-goals are against the constitution they can be banned. The constitution describes the political system and how it should work.

The participants of this system can be elected, but they can not change the basic elements of it (>democratic principles)

It's a thin line, for sure. The german NPD is very carefully what they declare their principles. They could never say "the jews will wear the star again, when we get into the government". This would result in a ban.

[joe mama]

If you think it's ok to ban a party, why? Because they're offensive?An "enlightened" society/government banning a political party because they're racist/violent/whatever is just as wrong as a repressive/facist/whatever society/government banning political parties that oppose it.

[roland]

in a democracy NO
in a Republic YES




[now you're confused p-) ]

[MaDuce]

They should be banned if the party as an enity/institution is a criminal/terrorist organization.

[fremen]

Well in my opinion...wait...wow!!! Toki is that your sister or what!!?
Sorry, I got sidetracked there for a moment. Nice picture Toki, who is that by the way?
Yes, I think certain extremist parties/groups that advocate hate and violence should be banned.

[mountainbear]

The party shouldn’t get banned but if members of the party are not respecting the laws they should get banned and face the juridical consequences.
Example: If a law against racism exists, a party can fight this law but if the members of this party commit racist acts they get banned and if a party politic is openly violating the law the members get banned.

[Bluezoo]

No, as a general rule. But you cannot oversimplify it in such absolute terms. There are no absolutes in a democracy. You need political parties, even socialists and yes, even "communists" (who would shun their violent means) to participate in a free and democratic country, provided that all of them which are duly registered and issued charters should adhere and respect the constitution of the State where they belong.

There are exceptions. If a political party, as a juridical entity, collectively acts to violate the constitution in promoting, espousing or committing sedition, insurrection or rebellion, then that party's charter can be revoked by the State.

Cheers.

[SeanAshi]

The NPD are violent people, aren't they always involved in arson and beatings mainly directed at immigrants?

[XTC]

Commies should be banned

[joe mama]

There are exceptions. If a political party, as a juridical entity, collectively acts to violate the constitution in promoting, espousing or committing sedition, insurrection or rebellion, then that party's charter can be revoked by the State.

The US's founding fathers were espousing and committing sedition, insurrection, and rebellion. That is EXACTLY why they felt it so necessary to include the bill of rights in an attempt to stop the government from saying people like them couldn't say the things they were saying.

A political party that, for example, says "blacks are inferior" or "muslims are inferior" or whatever, is expressing a point of view. A person (or group of people) who's part of that party who lynches a black person or attacks a muslim is an individual (or group of individuals) who have committed a specific crime. The party didn't commit the crime, no matter how stupid their point of view might be.

[toki]

The NPD are violent people, aren't they always involved in arson and beatings mainly directed at immigrants?

No... not directly. There was a try to ban this party. But on court it was decided they follow democratical principals. (i sum it up, a "little" more complicated). If they would be directly involved they would be a criminal institution and not only banned, but prosecuted. Other parties have been banned. It's not that in germany every radical party can be banned because paople don't like what they stand for. People on the npd rally had taped their facist tatoos. They know exactly what they can do. They could never have an NPD rally with swastika flags. They try to give it an officially "democratic" brush :|

[Bluezoo]

There are exceptions. If a political party, as a juridical entity, collectively acts to violate the constitution in promoting, espousing or committing sedition, insurrection or rebellion, then that party's charter can be revoked by the State.

The US's founding fathers were espousing and committing sedition, insurrection, and rebellion. That is EXACTLY why they felt it so necessary to include the bill of rights in an attempt to stop the government from saying people like them couldn't say the things they were saying.

A political party that, for example, says "blacks are inferior" or "muslims are inferior" or whatever, is expressing a point of view. A person (or group of people) who's part of that party who lynches a black person or attacks a muslim is an individual (or group of individuals) who have committed a specific crime. The party didn't commit the crime, no matter how stupid their point of view might be.

Yes, they were espousing sedition against England. That is why the de jure government under the English considered them as rebels and traitors while America calls them the founding fathers. As far as the English are concerned, they were forming a revolutionary government or a de facto government. The English had every right to run after the founding fathers, but the fact that they were not arrested was something fate has decided. When the hostilities ended, the revolutionary government formed by the founding fathers ceased to exist because it gained recognition internationally. At that very instance, a new nation was born.

Now, I agree with you that the bill or rights contained in the first ten amendments of the US constitution serves as a general rule, limitation to the powers of the government (in some forum/state/countries, it also serves to limit private rights). It serves a check or a safety valve against the wanton, unreasonable or capricious acts of the government.

However, the bill of rights should not be interpreted in such as way that it would, so to speak, “killeth the source of the right itself” –which is the constitution. The constitution is the source why a State with its legislative, executive and judicial branch exists.

The exercise of any right by any person has limitations as there are no absolutes in a democracy. (Now you may have some conservative/ strict vs. liberal interpretations–it is another topic, I am speaking of generalities here.) For instance, in the freedom of speech or religion, freedom to believe is NOT the same as freedom to act on ones belief. Nobody can dictate what a person believes in, but the moment he acts on that belief, he is subject to regulation. If in the process of the exercise of a right, a person injures others or deprives others of the enjoyment of their life, the rights of the former ceases to exist and the State has the authority to abate this felonious act. If the act of a person or in collusion with others or by and through a separate juridical entity like for example a party, affects the very existence of the State, or the acts constitute a clear and present danger to the State, then each person would be held accountable for their offense.

Now, I might not have been clear about the group or party. Let me elaborate. I agree with you that a an act of one person or a number of them who belong to a group, or party or a corporation is separate and distinct from the latter three. Now, there are laws governing organizations, groups, partnerships and corporations in any democratic country. A corporation has a separate distinct personality or by legal fiction, it is what you call a juridical personality. There are corporate acts which went through the process duly approved by its stockholders and board of directors. If the act it commits violates the law, the board of directors responsible for the infraction, could be made to account civilly and possibly, criminally. The stockholders would only be liable up to the extent of their stocks, unless, they had some complicity, wether wittingly or unwittingly in the commission of a crime. If on the other hand, the corporation is used as a conduit or shield to support violence against a State, that corporation’s charter would have to be cancelled by the SEC. An example of this happened in WWII when Nipon based or Japanese and German companies, under the grandfather doctrine, foreign dominated companies were sanctioned by the US government and their assets seized. The corporation was exercising legitimate trade, but when the war broke, the state pierced the veil of their corporate entity, had the right to suspend their business because income derived from these foreign companies could be used to give aid and comfort to the enemy. In an organization or group, different rules apply, but I am sure that when that group is used as a means or conduit to promote the violation of existing laws or where it seeks to overthrow the existing government, that same group or organization can be stricken out and banned by the state, as an act of self-preservation, of course, after balancing the interest of the individual or group and the right of the state to exist. If you would have noticed, in some countries, communist parties are banned and members prosecuted because they refused to lay down their arms. While the state recognized each individual’s right to free association or freedom of belief, acting on that belief has its limits.

Now, if John Doe feels that the state has violated his rights or his peers, or that the act of the State has no basis whatsoever under the bright sun, then he can go to court and question the propriety of the action and seek redress therefrom. That's the beauty of democracy.

Cheers. woot

[toki]

Democracy is not a principle of nature. It was elaorated by people. Some people here mix democracy with anarchy. Freedom of speech also means that there's someone who preserves it.
if a country decides to follow the priciples of demoracy, wich includes freedom of speech, it has to take care, that these priciples cannot be ruled out. So if an organisation (party) says "we'll get rid of democracy", the governing body(legislation) can stop this organisaion to safe the freedom of speech...

A freedom ends when rights are broken...


eeew i soud smart ass. :| i drank some beers (too many!) though and in three hours i have to get up again... broke my principles not to drink before friday. :lol:

[Aerosoul]

Political parties banned in a democracy? WTF?

[toki]

Political parties banned in a democracy? WTF?

read my post... if a party wants to get rid of the democracy there has to be an institution to preserve the democracy....

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

But even a party that openly admits they will scrap democracy, limit freedom of speech yet they get elected by the people.

What then?

I can think of a million reasons why democracy is flawed. As I can think of a million reasons why despotism is flawed.

At the end of the day. No matter what the regime is. A country is always ruled by the people. IF they don't like a regime, government, political party they will either elect a different party at the elections, rise up in mass public demonstrations or openly wage war to bring change.

Even in despotism, there must be a large % of people who support the ruling body for it to remain in power. Even in China, Cuba, United States, Australia, Iran, Germany, Russia, Iceland.

[toki]

But even a party that openly admits they will scrap democracy, limit freedom of speech yet they get elected by the people.

What then?

I can think of a million reasons why democracy is flawed. As I can think of a million reasons why despotism is flawed.

At the end of the day. No matter what the regime is. A country is always ruled by the people. IF they don't like a regime, government, political party they will either elect a different party at the elections, rise up in mass public demonstrations or openly wage war to bring change.

Even in despotism, there must be a large % of people who support the ruling body for it to remain in power. Even in China, Cuba, United States, Australia, Iran, Germany, Russia, Iceland.

you are right, countries are just ruled by people in the end. But a democracy also has the stabilizing element. If not it would be anarchistic.
It's a matter of definition. What do you call a "democracy", not what happens anyway....
And btw when a dictatorship is installed you don't need the majority of people anymore...

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

You still need a majority of people to be atleast happy with their life not to bother about it. IE the people that don't really care what the party is aslong as they have a job, can put food on the table and enjoy life.

If these 3 things do not exist. No form of government will last long.

[toki]

You still need a majority of people to be atleast happy with their life not to bother about it. IE the people that don't really care what the party is aslong as they have a job, can put food on the table and enjoy life.

If these 3 things do not exist. No form of government will last long.
sure, every government will have to give something to the people, but you "just" need a loyal minority to supress the people and sometimes they cannot free themselves anymore. Countless dictatorships ended not by the will of the own people, but by an act of a third power. Germany lost the war, but people didn't throw over the government... Don't ask WHY... that's always complicated., i think every dictatorship ends , BUT not always because of the own people... we'e getting off topic

whatever. i agree with you.. totally, i think i just have to add details. :lol:

have to hit the bed... have a nice day mate p-)

[Bluezoo]

But even a party that openly admits they will scrap democracy, limit freedom of speech yet they get elected by the people.

What then?

I can think of a million reasons why democracy is flawed. As I can think of a million reasons why despotism is flawed.

At the end of the day. No matter what the regime is. A country is always ruled by the people. IF they don't like a regime, government, political party they will either elect a different party at the elections, rise up in mass public demonstrations or openly wage war to bring change.....


Very true. It gives credence to the saying that "if everything is within our grasp, then what's heaven for." ;)

[username]

No, I don't think they should be banned

If you believe in freedom of speech then you must accept that others have the right to free speech even if you don't agree with what they say.

Freedom of speech and creating a political party is not the same thing.

Example:
When a party has the open intention to get rid of democracy, they could be banned. When the party-goals are against the constitution they can be banned. The constitution describes the political system and how it should work.

The participants of this system can be elected, but they can not change the basic elements of it (>democratic principles)

It's a thin line, for sure. The german NPD is very carefully what they declare their principles. They could never say "the jews will wear the star again, when we get into the government". This would result in a ban.

So your saying that political parties should be banned on the basis that they might say something and then when they get into power they do something else? Or that they aim to make changes to a consitution.

I see your point but I disagree

1. Political parties say one thing and do another all the time, it's a shame but if that was to happen there would be no political parties.

2. Government make changes to the consitution, this is what they do. So again if you were to ban them there would be no political parties.

[Bluezoo]

Political parties say one thing and do another all the time, it's a shame but if that was to happen there would be no political parties.

True, and that's politics. For as long as promises are made, but broken by politicians, retribution comes as swiftly, not by being banned, but through the ballot box. Parties lose or gain votes in every election.

Please also note that promises made by these parties are not overt acts themselves and are within the purview of free speech and freedom of belief. As I have written before, nobody can take your dreams away from you. This phrase has alegal basis. Everybody is free to believe in whatever his heart's desire, but the moment he acts on that dream or belief, you are subject to existing laws and regulations.

As to political parties or entities, it is my opinion :roll: that if they are used as a conduit or shield in committing and perpetuating an act in violation of existing laws and the constitution, that party's charter can be stricken down or banned from existence. There are no sacred cows which could circumvent the constitution. But this is easier said than done, because once the state/government has initiated the process of cancelling a party's charter, the former has the right to question the propriety of the government's action before a court. Once the Supreme Court or the Highest Court decides, it settles the issue with finality, because the SC is like an ugly woman, it has no appeal. :lol:

[BigBaribal]

Most people are unable to think in a strategic way: if you ban an extremist party, you oblige the members of this extremist party to be more clever with their arguments. What is in the end much more dangerous.

No need to say too that an extremist party is also a powerful political tool for the mainstream parties.

[Bluezoo]

Most people are unable to think in a strategic way: if you ban an extremist party, you oblige the members of this extremist party to be more clever with their arguments. What is in the end much more dangerous.....


Now you are talking! Or they could also go underground and it will take more resources to track them down.

Here is the catch. In a democracy, you encourage parties including from those coming from different extreme ends, to participate provided that they adhere to the "rules of the game" or the constitution. For as long as they do not transgress any law or the constitution, political parties are free to advance their agenda. But the moment they violate the "rules", the responsible member or perhaps the party itself is subject to sanction.

[BigBaribal]

Most people are unable to think in a strategic way: if you ban an extremist party, you oblige the members of this extremist party to be more clever with their arguments. What is in the end much more dangerous.....


Now you are talking! Or they could also go underground and it will take more resources to track them down.

Here is the catch. In a democracy, you encourage parties including from those coming from different extreme ends, to participate provided that they adhere to the "rules of the game" or the constitution. For as long as they do not transgress any law or the constitution, political parties are free to advance their agenda. But the moment they violate the "rules", the responsible member or perhaps the party itself is subject to sanction.

I fully agree with this position: free speech to all, but banning if national security is threatened.

[gaijinsamurai]

Banning a political party because their ideas are "dangerous" just increases public cynicism-thereby feeding into the fringegroups' message. A politically mature society will be able to live with groups like communists and right-wing parties because so few people would support them.
If they do something that is actually illegal, such as actively support the enemy in time of war, then find a way to arrest those responsible.
So my answer is "no", it is not a good idea to ban political parties.

[Bluezoo]

Banning a political party because their ideas are "dangerous" just increases public cynicism-thereby feeding into the fringegroups' message. A politically mature society will be able to live with groups like communists and right-wing parties because so few people would support them.
If they do something that is actually illegal, such as actively support the enemy in time of war, then find a way to arrest those responsible.
So my answer is "no", it is not a good idea to ban political parties.

Exactly! :D

[walford]

At the end of the day. No matter what the regime is. A country is always ruled by the people. IF they don't like a regime, government, political party they will either elect a different party at the elections, rise up in mass public demonstrations or openly wage war to bring change.

Even in despotism, there must be a large % of people who support the ruling body for it to remain in power. Even in China, Cuba, United States, Australia, Iran, Germany, Russia, Iceland.This is the mindset that holds if there is a blood-soaked tyranny in power, that is because the people want it that way. Thus, any outside interference -- even if it results in limited representative government -- is imperialism.

If the government has a monopoly on weapons/information, is willing to fill mass-graves with men, women and children to hold power and keep the people in perpetual poverty, there will be no change.

The only way that a dictatorship will fall is if the military decides to disobey direct orders to mow down civil demonstrations. That is why the Marcos regime and Soviet Union fell. That is why the Communist Party continues to hold power in China. The people are beside the point. That is why the majority of the world's population continues to languish under tyranny.

[CountZero]

Democracy is not a principle of nature. It was elaorated by people. Some people here mix democracy with anarchy. Freedom of speech also means that there's someone who preserves it.
if a country decides to follow the priciples of demoracy, wich includes freedom of speech, it has to take care, that these priciples cannot be ruled out. So if an organisation (party) says "we'll get rid of democracy", the governing body(legislation) can stop this organisaion to safe the freedom of speech...

A freedom ends when rights are broken...


eeew i soud smart ass. :| i drank some beers (too many!) though and in three hours i have to get up again... broke my principles not to drink before friday. :lol:

Ok here the Question in certain democratic countries there are Monarchistic parties who want to return to a democratic monarchy or one twher the ruler has more power. Now if they are elected by the ballot box what then?

or can they be banned before that in order to prevent the change of system?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Look at England, Australia, Canadan we have a Monarch and yet are fully functioning democracies.

Only difference is. A non-elected person can sack the elected government. Australia is the 4th oldest democracy in the world. It's happend twice in our history. Not bad.

[Wodan]

1. why do so many people want to destroy democracy?
(banning partys)

2. why do many people at first start with NPD in germany, if they dont life in germany? Solve your own problems, before of telling us what to do...