What is wrong with a theocratic government if the people want it and it suits their way of life, especially if it is a peaceful spiritual way of life and makes people happy. Last I checked Bhutan, which is also Buddhist, was doing well.
Also, I hope you're not saying that the way of the China/CCP is better than how Tibetans were before Chinese invasion. I don't think they were ever ravaged, unless you're referring to the Chinese propaganda to show them as the savior. And, if they were such a savior why are people killing themselves?
Moreover, I'm assuming you're on a similar crusade against the Pope and other theocratic governments, of other religions, in the world.
Bhutan government has done some brutal things to Nepalis in the 90's. Catholic church was much worse when it had actual power. State propaganda can be overwhelming to weak minds but a little history lesson can cure it.
To be clear I'm not for CCP or any autocracy. I'm against theocracy.
I wonder why you think Tibet would become a theocracy if it were independent. I don't think the current Dalai Lama would support that. Many places were not democratic before falling under foreign rule, but became democratic afterwards.
You described some example of Theocracy's that performed brutal acts against those that were perceived as "others". USA is responsible for many deaths and is constantly invading countries. Since using examples of bad things a government type has done is enough to say that the type of government is bad, democracy in turn must be bad. /s
Any form of government once formed is hard to change. How many governments do you see regularly changing from democracy to communism to theocracy to etc... Theocracy is a perfect valid form of governance.
Religion's just like governments have multiple sides to them. Which side the rulers decided to focus on changes which actions are performed.
Yes but unlike say a democracy, you can't vote the theocracy out. You can't be treated fairly if you are not of the official religion. You become an outsider, never to be treated like a full citizen, because of who you are.
Imagine if instead of religion it was skin color, or gender, or hell even height - only people over 2 meters could be in government. Can we whitewash those too? Are they as legitimate as Theocracy? Why not?
How about that you can't change it very easily once you have it? Or that it's based on authority, mostly of a small set of people? Or that religious issues have caused the slaughter of millions of people?
Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?
> Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?
I've not found a religion I like :)
I'd said what's wrong with theocracy if that is what the people want, for example vote for. So, in effect it's a democratically chosen theocracy. Is that not democracy after all?
In other words, if Tibet were to become independent and the people chose Dalai Lama to be the head of the state, would it be a theocracy or a democracy or a theocratic democracy?
But, I get your point.
Still, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves debating future Tibetan government while it is being butchered under the CCP. We safely can punt this debate for later.
Is there some sort of founding document that enshrines the right to vote and replace leaders with a regular cadence, regardless of the desires of that leader? If so, then regardless of who they vote for, it's a democracy.
If instead a person is appointed to lead, who will use their religion to decide state matters, and there is no way to remove them except for them to choose to replace themselves, then it's a theocracy.
"Theocratic democracies" are unstable and don't last. There is no way for them to last. Either it allows those who are not of the same faith as the leaders to influence policy and have their voices heard and becomes a democracy, or it doesn't, in which case it is a theocracy, and a form of autocracy or oligarchy (just, one that claims divine authority instead of purely material authority).
Was Nazi Germany democratic because Hitler was elected? I doubt it. Once you preclude being able to remove the leader, which seems to be the case de facto or de jure (I don't know) you stop being a democracy.
Russia is another one of those countries that had some kind of election in the past but going forward you can't really see them being fair elections.
Of course people are free to elect eg the Christian democrats as often as they like, so long as they can choose otherwise. Japan and Mexico IIRC had people electing the same party for decades.
They force others to believe as they do and likely any nonbelievers are either jailed or become rejected by society at large as untouchables. That seems as bad as most dictatorships, barring outright torture and indiscriminate execution for going against the state.
Also, I hope you're not saying that the way of the China/CCP is better than how Tibetans were before Chinese invasion. I don't think they were ever ravaged, unless you're referring to the Chinese propaganda to show them as the savior. And, if they were such a savior why are people killing themselves?
Moreover, I'm assuming you're on a similar crusade against the Pope and other theocratic governments, of other religions, in the world.