The King of Bhutan Problem

[Jubal]

Time we did some real philosophy here...

Not that long ago, Bhutan became a democracy. However, this met very stiff resistance - not from the king or the royal family, who were very keen on the idea, but from the people. The Bhutanese monarchy is quite young, and more or less all their rulers so far have been pretty darn good at their job.

So here's the philosophical point; is it fair to give people democracy if they don't actually want it? On the other hand, is it fair to keep a (fundamentally good) monarch in power if they don't really want that either?

[comrade_general]

Since they are a democracy the people can vote to do whatever they want, but if they vote away their democracy and the current monarchs don't want the job and hand it over to someone else that the people don't like but who now has the power to deny the people a vote to remove them then it will probably lead to something such as violence. See, politics suck.

[Jubal]

Yeah, but we're going (for the sake of the philosophy) from the point at which they're still a monarchy. Is it then right for the King to enforce a democracy he knows his people don't want?

[comrade_general]

If he has the power to then he can, but then the people can use their newfound democracy to vote it right back in his face.  

[Jubal]

Can you vote for someone who doesn't want to stand though?

[comrade_general]

I don't see why not, we can write anyone in for a vote, say for president, in our elections. Practically impossible to rally enough people to do it to make it work though. Do they have to accept it if they get elected, no.

[Jubal]

Wait - so you could happily nominate any US citizen for President without their consent?

[comrade_general]

Yep  

[Jubal]

...why has Chuck Norris not been nominated yet?

[comrade_general]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=52247927552