Just because you don’t like the result of the election doesn’t make it undemocratic. It was a fair and just election and people have voted what they want and that’s how democracy works.
So is democracy always good? Or not? If you say you’re anti democracy, a certain cohort gets upset. If you say you’re anti fascist but fascists get elected via democracy, another cohort gets upset.
“Democracy always works” has been shown to be objectively false, and so I’m unsure how we can say it is an optimal governance system. Works sometimes, but sometimes it doesn’t. Can we tolerate the failure modes until reversion to the mean? Depends on your tolerance for the costs.
> Why it matters: Germany rebuilt its democracy after Nazi rule with unusually strong safeguards against extremism. AfD's breakthrough shows those barriers aren't stopping Europe's far right from becoming dominant electoral forces.
> Context: Germany's postwar system was built in the shadow of the Nazis' destruction of the democratic Weimar Republic.
> The 1949 Basic Law embraces the concept of a "militant democracy" to defend against movements that seek to abolish the constitutional order.
> “Democracy always works” has been shown to be objectively false
Citation needed, never heard this said by anybody.
"democracy" is a wide, wide thing. Technically Russia is a democracy. Also in Europe democracies' presidents don't have the same level of power as Trump, and are more limited.
Democracies only work as long as the people are smart, invested, informed and politicians are accountable and changed often to avoid concentration of power.
Bureaucracy is hell, until you realize it's a feature since it complicates power grabs.
Even Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others", so I really have no idea where you got the "it always works" from.
