- 04 Jan 2014 19:33
#14348642
This is a problem with using terms that are relatively vague like "Democracy." If term limits for the chief executive are required, then the USA would not be considered a democracy until the early 1950s (or if a complete enfranchisement is required, then the 1960s). The point is that democracy is a broad term, and as Marx pointed out in even his early works: it's necessary to distinguish between formal and actual democracy, between existing bourgeois democracy and a potential working class democracy.
For example I would say that Cuba is a democracy despite the lack of formal votes for the executive. It's just not a democracy in the same sense that the United States is a democracy.
Leninist wrote:And I recall there was a problem with term limits, namely lack there of, which a democracy should have to ensure a good turn over of leadership.
This is a problem with using terms that are relatively vague like "Democracy." If term limits for the chief executive are required, then the USA would not be considered a democracy until the early 1950s (or if a complete enfranchisement is required, then the 1960s). The point is that democracy is a broad term, and as Marx pointed out in even his early works: it's necessary to distinguish between formal and actual democracy, between existing bourgeois democracy and a potential working class democracy.
For example I would say that Cuba is a democracy despite the lack of formal votes for the executive. It's just not a democracy in the same sense that the United States is a democracy.