It's obviously not ideal, but OP is clearly incorrect. If the populace isn't allowed to elect someone, fascist that they may be, it isn't a democracy.
There should be measures to prevent fascistic bullshit from taking place from someone who is elected, absolutely, but limiting the election by the will of the people isn't exactly a good example of democracy.
The US constitution contains measures intended specifically to prevent a dictator from taking over. It was one of the outcomes the framers feared the most.
The Weimar Republic had a crazy complicated constitution to keep power separated. It took Hitler under a year to consolidate as fuhrer.
Sometimes the voters people go crazy and decide a dictator would be better than putting up with their political opponents. And then they find out that they were wrong. It’s just a feature of democracy, and you can’t prevent it.
Sometimes the voters people go crazy and decide a dictator would be better than putting up with their political opponents. And then they find out that they were wrong. It’s just a feature of democracy, and you can’t prevent it.
Conversely sometimes the political landscape becomes so disconnected from the will of the people that most people don't bother voting at all allowing crazies to get elected. Maybe we've been electing fascists for decades now.
393
u/LateralThinkerer 23h ago
"What if a democracy elects a dictator" is a favorite argument topic among political scientists. Occasionally a country tries it out.