DDO Beginners tournament: Term limits are good for democracy

Term limits limit the will of the peopleThis can only be counted as a concession if one counts the constitution or the democratic process itself as a limit on the will of the people. They undoubtedly are, as they force this will to adhere to certain rules in its manifestations and not to surpass certain boundaries (that of democracy and human rights). It is precisely these limits which would safeguard a democracy from popular authoritarianism, or at least act as a buffer to it. It would be like a train complaining against the illegitimate suppression of his free movement that is the railway system. He can, of course free himself from the rails, but will find quite suddenly that he is not free to be a train. What we are debating is not whether or not term limits constrain the free will of the people, but whether this does so in a way that is constructive for democracy or destructive of it.A democracy works generally by the majority rule, but it is not the dictatorship of the majority. For a democracy to be recognized as such it must not only do the bidding of the majority but also respect the rights of the minority. The majority of US citizens believe in public education and that this education ought to be mandatory until a certain age. The United States, however, is never so democratic when it provides a general law on mandatory education in response to this general idea as it is when it exempts the Amish communities from following it. It is respect for basic rights which lead to a conception of equality that is the bedrock of democracy, and to take democracy as an excuse to eliminate the former is to take democracy as an excuse to eliminate democracy. Con notes that I contend that the Germans were being democratic when electing Hitler, and this is true, in a formal sense. They were following all the rules of the democratic process. The only thing they forgot is the most important thing: the limits without which democracy ceases to be democracy.Con also seems to believe that bad ideologies thrive because of "new faces". History shows otherwise. It is only when the charismatic leader falls that most of the attacks on democracy of any weight have also fallen. Just as the death of Chavez will lead to either the end of his regime or the end of the faux democratic pantomime in Venezuela, it has historically been the case that authoritarian regimes require the presence of a charismatic figurehead who could continue without limit.Head of State without ideologyTo argue for a Head of State who merely mirrors the will of the people is to divorce political theory from reality. At no time has such a man existed, and if such a man existed he would undoubtedly be a terrible Head of State. Human beings can never be merely mirrors, as we will always have biases and ideas of our own which would in the very least influence what we do. What Con proposes was pretty much what was attempted with some of Europe's Constitutional Monarchies in the early 20th century. The king would, after an election, chose to form a government selecting those ministers he believed reflected the popular will. This system was in place in Italy when Victorio Emmanuele III asked Mussolini to form a government and in Spain when Alfonso XIII asked General Miguel Primo de Rivera to take the reigns of government. No impactPro contends you cannot limit something in favor of what you are limiting. I have already shown this is patent nonsense. If this principle were to be taken to its conclusion in reference to any of the other cases where there are limits to democracy we would immediately eliminate first the Supreme Court, then the Constitution itself, and finally the representative system (in favor of assembly-style government). These limits on unbridled popular sovereignty do not attack popular sovereignty, but rather allow it to thrive. It is rather like putting ten children in a playpen surrounded, not by walls, but by sheer cliffs. One would soon find these children cowering in the center of the playpen in fear of death. If you add good, sturdy walls those same children would be bouncing about and having the best of times. These limits on democracy perform a similar function insofar as they deny democracy the right to commit suicide. Con misrepresents my position when he posits a population in which 9000 people are in favor of ideology A and the remaining 1000 in favor of ideology B. He contends my view is that B "would have the right to be a 'noisy minority' and impose their ideology". This is not so. Ideology A would have every right to lead the country, so long as it respects the rights to free speech, association, conscience etc. of proponents of ideology B, and would have to present a new candidate every so many years (somewhat more than six and somewhat less than 14, I should think). I am sure the readers will find this position much less nefarious.Concluding remarks on political relativismIt is never a good sign when in a debate about whether something is good or bad one side deems it necessary to doubt the meaning of the words good and bad. Good and bad, contrary to that rather new-fanged ideology that claims the contrary are words with meaning. Webster: Good: "of a favorable character or tendency" Bad: "Unfavorable; failing to reach an acceptable standard." There is no contradiction in stating that limits to popular sovereignty can be good for a democratic system in that it protects the safeguards it has to basic freedoms and limit the capacity to develop a tyranny. This should be specially obvious to those familiar with the American system which is based on a conception of human rights and is rather weary of allowing any power within the country to go without its checks and balances.