The Israeli election results are in, with incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud-Beitenu bloc claiming victory. But when I try to gauge democracy through a broad lens, I can’t help but question the moral integrity of Israeli democracy.

In class last Thursday we set out to explore some of the basic pillars of democracy. We discussed elections, universal suffrage, free press etc. Although I did not think of it at the time, I feel the word ‘democracy’ also connotes a degree of altruism, in the sense that by definition universal suffrage supposes a standard of equality between all citizens. As such, I consider altruism to be a cornerstone of democracy. That being said, I hardly consider Israel’s treatment of Palestine as being altruistic.

I am not implying that any exertion of non-altruistic foreign policy will necessarily compromise democracy, but I do believe that at some point a line must be drawn. I think a good place to start would be to assure that one democracy is not legitimately able to  obstruct another state’s sovereignty. This is exactly what Israel is now doing to Palestine.

On November 29, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to upgrade Palestine from UN observer to non-voting member state.  Predictably, Israel has rejected Palestine’s new claim to statehood. Israel claims that by Palestine seeking sovereignty by means other than direct negotiations with Israel, it has broken the Oslo Accord. As such, Israel has taken it upon itself to punish Palestine for defying its oppressor.

The following day, in clear violation of International law, Israel announced its plans to build new Israeli settlements in the West Bank, an act which is in violation of international law. Then three days later Israel announced it would be holding back $100 million in aid to Palestine. Before I get sucked into the vortex of the Israeli-Palestine conflict I better stop here, but before I go I just want to make my point clear.

When one democracy is being used to obstruct other democracies abroad, regardless of internal policy, it should by no means be considered as an example to follow.

Zach, if I could go anywhere right now I would go back to Argentina. I went down there a few years ago and let me tell you, I love that place and it loves me! I know Canadians always think everybody loves us everywhere we go, and whether or not this is true I can personally attest that Canada is a big deal down there – they love us. Patagonia is beautiful, fresh and clean. Buenos Aires is an amazing world-class city and Cordoba has some really cool history. Plus, everyone is beautiful so in case you cant tell, i think you should go.

Matt, if you want my opinion on the locals, I personally have a soft spot for Seymour, but if you are looking for the most snow of the three, then I think Cypress is probably your best bet. However, if you ever get access to a vehicle I recommend skipping Whistler and instead going across the boarder to Mt Baker. It is smaller than whistler but is half the price with way more snow and about the same distance away. I have a seasons pass to whistler, but if I’m not in Whis, I’m at Baker.

Halvor, I understand you like cats; I do too. I also enjoy watching cat videos, so if you are looking for any recommendations I have many. Like this guy: his name is Maru and he is a real hoot. He really likes boxes. enjoy.

I just read Mackie’s critique of Schumpeter and I must say that I am not entirely convinced. I haven’t read Schumpeter’s book but from what I gather from Mackie’s critique, Schumpeter is speaking in very real terms; meaning, as he sees it raw democracy is just not how it looks in the books. Mackie on the other hand objects to Schumpeter’s pessimism with typical theoretical jargon like, “In a proper democracy, voters mostly control parliaments, and parliaments mostly control leaders, through prospective voting, public opinion between elections, and ultimately through retrospective voting in recurrent elections.” I get it, we all get it – democracy is grand! But what Mackie is describing here is textbook; it’s ideal. But life is rarely this peachy, and the way I see it (being the cynic that I am) in many ways Schumpeter hits the mark with his critiques of modern democracy – but not entirely.

Before I come down too hard on Mackie I must commend him for his moderation, he does make some compelling arguments. For instance, he is right in rejecting Schumpeter’s allegations of too many competing civil interests nullifying any notion of a common will. As Mackie correctly points out, the issue here cannot be adequately simmered down to a simple dichotomy, but rather, as is supposed to be the case, out of the agora emerges a compromise of competing interests, known effectively as the common will.  From what I can gather from the Mackie article, Schumpeter builds on this assertion to deduce that any reconciliation of competing views is essentially meaningless because it is not true to rational unity. Personally, I believe this to be a weak argument.

It sounds like Schumpeter has called for a democratically elected dictator to supplement what he sees as the citizenry’s lack of common will. I can’t speak on his rational for this claim because I am not familiar with his argument, but I do believe there is something to be said for the benevolent dictator. As Schumpeter points out, dictators are efficient, and if they are truly looking out for the citizenry then a lot of net benefit can be gained from authoritarian rule. However, dictatorships can easily become repressive regimes, despite being voted in democratically. So should a dictator be seen as an antidote to a questionable common will? Absolutely not – it’s just too risky. Schumpeter is adamant that authoritarian regimes can still be democratic, and in theory I agree with this. But to me this sounds like another idealistic justification that I am just not comfortable with it. The fact of the matter is that although dictatorships often rise to power democratically, they often don’t stay this way; even North Korea has elections!

I like when Mackie says, “Schumpeter is wrong that democracy can only be of instrumental value; it is also of intrinsic value.” I think this simple statement speaks volumes for democracy. I know for me personally, when I look around in the free world today I see lots of problems and sometimes for brief moments of despair I even lose hope. But what keeps me going is knowing that, as decrepit as they may be, at least I have democratic mechanisms at my disposal, which is a lot more than most people can say.

I’m sure some of you will learn nothing new from this post, but this is a new revelation for me so I want to talk about it. It is about ethnonationalism; I realize this is a highly contentious subject but I’ve framed it in a way as to avoid getting into too much trouble. But before I begin I want to make clear that in no way do I support violence, bigotry, racism, or discrimination…

Until I started writing my last post I had always discounted ethnonationalism  as crude and illegitimate.. That being said, a valuable life lesson I have learned is that you don’t have to agree with someone to understand them. And also, I happen to know from firsthand experience that some people just don’t respond well to change. Basically the following is just a recap of my thought process form earlier this afternoon: I started with the basic premise that at the root of ethnonationalism is racism, but not necessarily in the traditional, hierarchal sense, rather I think that one can be ethnocentric without being discriminatory. By this I mean that it is possible to recognize cultural differences without holding one particular culture in higher esteem than others. From here I think ethnonationalism argues that because cultures are different they should be segregated, or put another way, ethnonationalism may argue for a multicultural world, but not a multicultural society (or course some will be different).

As a Canadian, grasping this notion has been a bid of a hurdle. This is because as a Canadian I define my cultural identity as one of multiculturalism. But this is not necessarily the case for all societies.

I find when I am trying to grasp a foreign concept it helps if I can relate the concept to any person experiences that I may have. When I reflect on my families roots here in Canada I feel a sense of pride knowing that 300 years ago my ancestors were the first settlers on the land that many of them still inhabit today. Also, because my relatives have put so much effort into preserving their Irish heritage I feel a connection to Ireland even though I have never been. That being said, in terms of ancestral roots in a given region, by European standards 300 years is not much. So, in a way I am envious of Europeans who are able to trace their culture and ancestry within a specific region back to time immemorial. As such, I am empathetic to the difficulty it must be for many Europeans to welcome foreign elements into their ethnic and culturally homogenous societies.

Personally, I will always remain an advocate of multiculturalism, simply because it is all I know… so in a sense – in an inverted sort of way – perhaps I have more in common with the ethnonationalists than I had originally thought.

The radical right has been sprouting up across Europe and in 2010, by winning 5.7% of the national vote, they permeated onto Swedish soil as well.

For this week’s Democracy in the News post I will discuss radical right-winged politics in Sweden, specifically the Swedish Democrats (SD). The SD are a radical right populist party that runs on a platform of militant xenophobic nationalism, has a hard-line approach to immigration policy reform, and calls for a return to Nordic homogeny.

I’m not here to argue either for or against radical right populism, and as of yet I’m not prepared to call the SD undemocratic, but I do recognize a cause for concern with this shift in Swedish democracy; especially when politics translates into violence. To put my concern into perspective, one must understand that the SD was formed in the late 1980s with the merger of a number of racist, Nazi, and other anti-democratic groups. This means that many senior ranking SD have joined the party back in its fascist roots.

The article I have chosen involves a scandal incriminating three rogue Swedish Democrats who were caught on film terrorizing the streets of Stockholm with weapons, violence, and racial slurs. Most concerning about all of this is that these were no low-level party members; one assailant, Erik Almqvist, held the position of economic policy spokesman.

Almqvist’s career with SD has since been terminated as a result of the incident. But I cant help but wonder if he has been dismissed for his actions or if he has been dismissed for being caught.

I agree with Mackie when in Schumpeter’s Leadership Democracy he argues for the intrinsic value of democracy. Its just that I cannot seem to find any intrinsic value in the Swedish Democrats.

Seriously, i took the first week off (which means the second too) and now I’m way behind.

For my first post on democracy in the news I have chosen a topic that holds a very special place in my heart, its unique and its called Rob Ford politics. In case you haven’t heard of him next time you need a laugh look him up. He is the mayor of Toronto, a buffoon, and above all, a colossal f*** up, but I like the guy, he keeps me laughing. I suppose he does make my city look bad being totally out to lunch and all, but then again, I make my friends look bad so who am I to judge.

But I’m worried; it looks like Mayor Ford has gotten in a little over his head, which is an understatement because this time around he as actually gotten himself kicked out of office.  However, I’m questioning the validity of this ruling; I’m not so sure that in this instance the punishment fits the crime, in fact I’m not so sure the judges decree is even democratic. But before I proceed with the story I feel I should give a bit of background information first.

It all starts with a passion of Ford’s; his Achilles Heel so to speak – high school football. Any Torontonian who watches the evening news knows that Rob Ford loves high school football. And I must give him credit; he does devote a lot of time and energy into helping out the sport, even, at times, at the expense of his mayoral duties. Also, ha has a tendency to leverage his position in office to further his personal agendas.

This time around he is in trouble for violating Toronto’s municipal conflict of interest act by misappropriating city resources to fundraise for his football team. Back when he was on city council he was using City of Toronto letterhead to fundraise, essentially misleading donors into thinking they were donating to the city when in fact they were donating to Ford’s football foundation for kids. Eventually it was brought to Ford’s attention that this practice was illegal and he stopped. However, when the judge ordered that he pay back the garnered funds from his own pockets, he refused. The judge set a deadline to pay, Ford ignored, and as such the judge has been booted him from office for violating breach of trust.

My question is whether a judge should have the authority to override the will of the people? After all, we voted him in so shouldn’t it be up to us to vote him out? Of course Mayor Ford is appealing his dismissal, so once again, it is up to the judges to decide the fate of our democracy.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!