I can see his point. They're in the middle of a fight for their existence. Why would you hold an election, particularly if he's doing a good job of it? Yes, I concede that this is a slippery slope for democracy, in that this is the very rationale that dictators use to shore up power. However, the grounds that they make those claims are usually against imagined foes rather than an actual country invading yours.

Day 1 after they kick russia out permanently? Election.

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Day 1 after they kick russia out permanently? Election.

You'd actually want to schedule it a bit further out than this. Once the war is over, political parties will need to time organize, build infrastructure and campaign in an environment where the weather isn't "sunny with a chance of bombs later". Holding elections, with any sort of opposition having not had time to campaign is one of the more insidious anti-democratic tricks. As it leads to people voting for the "devil they know", even if the opposition isn't a devil at all.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 5 points 10 months ago

I'm with you, I'm just being illustrative here.

[–] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago

Guess what the Americans and Brits did to the Italians after WW2? You might be surprised at the answer.

[–] scorpionix@feddit.de 5 points 10 months ago

Why would you hold an election, particularly if he’s doing a good job of it?

Well, that's up for debate and should be decided by the people. As you said: It's a slippery slope and I'll add the way to hell is paved with good intentions.