3 ms·
> Royalty tends to be a lot more stable than democracy's. Is it? I've thought that the big advantage of democracies is that when people get fed up with their l
by jabl 10y ago
> Royalty tends to be a lot more stable than democracy's.
Is it? I've thought that the big advantage of democracies is that when people get fed up with their leaders, they can change them without a bloody revolution or civil war (which, as you say, is incredibly damaging).
I mean, our dear democratically(?) elected politicians say or do dumb things just like any inbred royalty, but at least we can switch them peacefully.
Of course, democracies aren't immune and can fail too. E.g. Germany in the 1930's, or for that matter Turkey 2017.
- Retric 10y agoUS had a massive civil war, further only a fraction of democracy's evem last 100 years. Germany, France, Turkey, Russia, Iran, etc are all well known. But, look at South America or Africa and you see many countries hold elections, but not consistently over time. PS: The US scores relatively low on several measures of democracy. Relatively few house seats are competitive with many candidates unposed. D.C. has zero power in congress yet can't even run it's own budget. The president frequently loses the popular vote by huge margins. Is so something of a nominal democracy where without massive backlash the people have little say.