3 ms·

Among the countries that today maintain the same constitutional order as they have for centuries are democracies. Switzerland, the United States, the UK come t

Among the countries that today maintain the same constitutional order as they have for centuries are democracies. Switzerland, the United States, the UK come to mind. All autocracies that existed 100 years ago have been overthrown—multiple times in many cases. In what way is democracy to be considered destabilizing? Looking at history and at the present moment, one could say that instability is an inherent feature of human society, but that democracy substantially reduces that instability.

igorkraw 5y ago
It seems to be quite destabilising for autocracies. Some might consider that a a good thing though
- legutierr 5y ago
  Autocracy is destabilizing for autocracies. Looking at history, autocracies are constantly prone to being overthrown from within, and from without. This is a feature of the autocracy being overthown, and not necessarily a feature of the system of government that replaces it.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > autocracies are constantly prone to being overthrown from within, and from without And this is quite fundamental to the autocratic model. Coming in #2 in a democratic contest for power means you don’t get to be President. Coming in #2 in an autocratic contest for power means losing your property, liberty and likely life. The former encourages reconciliation. The latter, challenging the outcome at all costs.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      To build on that, coming in at #2 in a democratic contest for power means you don't get to be President yet. A properly functioning democracy affords you or your faction a second chance usually enhanced by accepting the result. A properly functioning autocracy doesn't.
dmux 5y ago
>In what way is democracy to be considered destabilizing? I think it's interesting to think of the receiving side of this as well: how stable are democratic allies when their foreign policy can change election cycle to election cycle?
- zozbot234 5y ago
  The foreign policy choices of liberal democracies tend to be far more stable, consensus-driven and cooperation-oriented actually. This is what the whole notion of a "liberal international order" ultimately boils down to. And it was hardly a failure - even the most recent and salient seeming "successes" of various more-or-less authoritarian polities are ultimately reliant on the "liberal" order working as well as it does.

igorkraw 5y ago

It seems to be quite destabilising for autocracies. Some might consider that a a good thing though

legutierr 5y ago
Autocracy is destabilizing for autocracies. Looking at history, autocracies are constantly prone to being overthrown from within, and from without. This is a feature of the autocracy being overthown, and not necessarily a feature of the system of government that replaces it.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > autocracies are constantly prone to being overthrown from within, and from without And this is quite fundamental to the autocratic model. Coming in #2 in a democratic contest for power means you don’t get to be President. Coming in #2 in an autocratic contest for power means losing your property, liberty and likely life. The former encourages reconciliation. The latter, challenging the outcome at all costs.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    To build on that, coming in at #2 in a democratic contest for power means you don't get to be President yet. A properly functioning democracy affords you or your faction a second chance usually enhanced by accepting the result. A properly functioning autocracy doesn't.

dmux 5y ago

>In what way is democracy to be considered destabilizing? I think it's interesting to think of the receiving side of this as well: how stable are democratic allies when their foreign policy can change election cycle to election cycle?

zozbot234 5y ago
The foreign policy choices of liberal democracies tend to be far more stable, consensus-driven and cooperation-oriented actually. This is what the whole notion of a "liberal international order" ultimately boils down to. And it was hardly a failure - even the most recent and salient seeming "successes" of various more-or-less authoritarian polities are ultimately reliant on the "liberal" order working as well as it does.