Fact check, Plz.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Silly English people.   

No wonder you had to hire Germans to run your country.

[bds]

And The Queen technically can still send all the politicians home like naughty schoolkids if the whim takes her.

Yes, because that would happen.

Technically having the power to do something =/= having the power to do something.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And The Queen technically can still send all the politicians home like naughty schoolkids if the whim takes her.

Yes, because that would happen.

Technically having the power to do something =/= having the power to do something.

Difference is, back in 1812, it not only COULD happen for real, it DID happen for real.  More often than not.

[Thurnez Isa]

Thurnez I take your point about the limited franchise but that was what constituted democracy back then. Democracy just means "people power" and who is to be regarded as one of "the people" is wildly variable over time

I really disagree with that. By that definition everything is democracy.
The way I see it is there has be at least a small majority of power delegated to the populous, not just the ruling elite.
And Britain before the 1800's fought hard against this reorganization of power, most famous being the French democracy which threatened them far worse then any colonial power could. Now I know that wasn't the only reason but it surely was an influence in the wars against the Girondins and the Jacobins.

[MMIX]

Thurnez I take your point about the limited franchise but that was what constituted democracy back then. Democracy just means "people power" and who is to be regarded as one of "the people" is wildly variable over time

I really disagree with that. By that definition everything is democracy.
The way I see it is there has be at least a small majority of power delegated to the populous, not just the ruling elite.
And Britain before the 1800's fought hard against this reorganization of power, most famous being the French democracy which threatened them far worse then any colonial power could. Now I know that wasn't the only reason but it surely was an influence in the wars against the Girondins and the Jacobins.

I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society.  I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally

I came across this quote when I was checking some stuff and it really rings true
"Democracy is the most valued and also the vaguest of political terms in the modern world."
Its like a colour -  there are lots of different shades

I am not aware of any system where power is delegated to the populace by a ruling elite

And yeah the French Revolution scared the living shit out of the PTB over here but I don't see how that reflects on the nature of "democracy".

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The Britspags had a democracy of sorts, 'democracy lite'... America used to have the same thing. The difference between "White Male Land Owner" in the US and "Peerage" in Britain boils down to earning enough money to buy land and thus your right to vote, versus, being born in the right family, doing something special, or earning enough money to buy yourself a title.

Democracy is like a nice lullaby to sing while raping babies. 

[MMIX]

Democracy is like a nice lullaby to sing while raping babies. 

Someone ought to set that fucker to music. With its haunting chorus 'If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it'

[Thurnez Isa]

I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society.  I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally

so explain to me how there was any suffrage in Britain at 1812

[P3nT4gR4m]

Democracy - some bullshit ideological pipedream invented by cavemen in togas.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Alsao, I believe most historians consider the British system to have been a 'democracy' since the English Civil War, which changed final authority from the King to the Parliament.

Not a good example of a democracy, but then given the way the US looked in 1812, I don't see much difference.

[MMIX]

I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society.  I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally

so explain to me how there was any suffrage in Britain at 1812

I'm just saying that while I agree that there was nothing even remotely approaching what in the modern world would be accepted as universal suffrage there was a class of people who were  entitled to elect members to a Parliament which represented the political power in the country. That, limited or not, is suffrage.

[MMIX]

Democracy - some bullshit ideological pipedream invented by cavemen in togas.

hear, hear!!!!

Democracy is just a way to hide the power so the great unwashed can't get their hands on it

[Thurnez Isa]

Alsao, I believe most historians consider the British system to have been a 'democracy' since the English Civil War, which changed final authority from the King to the Parliament.

Not a good example of a democracy, but then given the way the US looked in 1812, I don't see much difference.

the final authority was reversed (this is the wrong word, I can't think of the right one at this moment in time) after the restoration though... I can see the parliamentary aspect though, especially it being almost joint in power at least in a technical form but for me that is still a stretch... Especially at the time in question.
Still semantics though... personally war 1812 I would say probably too tentative to list in this category, for the simple fact its a little too debatable

[MMIX]

Alsao, I believe most historians consider the British system to have been a 'democracy' since the English Civil War, which changed final authority from the King to the Parliament.

Not a good example of a democracy, but then given the way the US looked in 1812, I don't see much difference.

I however, coming at this from the pov of an historian, would consider that Parliaments prior to the Civil Wars were equally "democratic" but you have to be very careful to specify what you mean by "democracy" in any given situation. The situation after the Restoration was very different than that pre-Civil Wars the Crown's powers were curtailed but in many ways nothing much had changed. As I said earlier the Monarch still has the constitutional right to throw Parliament out, and while this may not have happened a whole hell of a lot in recent times it would be foolish beyond belief to assume that it could never happen.

And just to poke your last point for a moment - I'm not aware of any good example of a democracy, either in 1812 or now. Historically 'democracy' was a way for those with particular social interests to drive progress in directions which they desired and which offered them and their connections advantages and in the modern world it is a smokescreen to make people feel connected and responsible for the directions which 'progress' will take while still allowing the same traditional power blocks exercise the same power as they have always done. Yes I'm a cynic. No I don't think I'm wrong on this one.

[Thurnez Isa]

I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society.  I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally

so explain to me how there was any suffrage in Britain at 1812

I'm just saying that while I agree that there was nothing even remotely approaching what in the modern world would be accepted as universal suffrage there was a class of people who were  entitled to elect members to a Parliament which represented the political power in the country. That, limited or not, is suffrage.

I didn't say universal... just enough of the populous that you could safely say that that a good portion of the decision making progress is out of the nobility's hand, at least in theory.