It's dealing with a, maybe the, classic problem with democracy: The tyranny of the majority, where a majority makes use of their dominance to vote democratically to abuse a minority. So for instance things like how North Americans (and Australians) have treated the people who got there first, or the way Canadians stuck the local population of Japanese descent in camps and took their property during WW II, or the way some Europeans have been dealing with the Moslem population. Even when rules are voted on which apply equally to all, they can be used to target particular groups--take the French laws about displaying religious symbols which in theory apply to Christian or Jewish ones and so don't target particular religions . . . except Christians and Jews aren't mandated to display anything, and everyone knows the real target is headscarves and turbans and such. Many have made the case that if the results of a decision primarily affect one group, they should have a bigger say in the proceedings than those who are not affected--but it's hard to come up with a procedure for arranging that.
In the long run as different groups get nailed by such actions, consensus usually builds for enshrining general rights that apply to all that protect people from that kind of thing. Everyone's a minority in some way.
The bit at the beginning about Communism and Fascism . . . their society definitely does not seem to be a utopia; there's a whiff of cold war about, with that kind of earnest propaganda and militarism around the edges of everything. I mean, we've got stacks of militarism and propaganda today, but it has a different feel to it in the absence of any serious enemies.
.jpg?1379926068)
.jpg?1446192371)
