3 ms·
This is a strange conclusion considering non-democratic political changes cause plenty of chaos. Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War, the Protestant Refor
by enkid 5y ago
This is a strange conclusion considering non-democratic political changes cause plenty of chaos. Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War, the Protestant Reformation and accompanying violence, the Boxer Rebellion, all come to mind. Of course changing political systems will cause violence. Look at Kazakhstan. The current protests have very little to do with democracy in their cause. People would have been protesting high gas prices without the goal of having democracy. But autocrats will blame the political side of things when the cause is purely economic.
The real question is what happens once democracy has taken hold.
- Proven 5y ago
- AniseAbyss 5y agoAre revolutions undemocratic? Would Mao have won the Chinese civil war if he did not in fact have the support of the people? Democracy is not inherently stable, in fact I would argue they are the opposite. An election is like flipping a coin.
- notahacker 5y agoAn election is like flipping a coin that lands on a side with relatively substantial weight of public support (quirks of electoral systems mean it's not guaranteed to be the most popular or least unpopular side, but unless it's blatantly rigged, substantial public support will be there). A revolution is flipping a coin that lands on the side most effectively able to concentrate violence. Sometimes that's achieved by overwhelming public support, but if your "revolution" is a military coup, it doesn't need many people to be on side at all.
- throwawaygal7 5y agoMao won the Civil War only after getting US backing during WW2, and allowing the nationalists to do the bulk of the fight againsg the Japanese while gathering his strength.
- enkid 5y agoChaos and violence are not the sea thing in your definition. I would much rather have political chaos and no violence than violence and political stability.