4 ms·

I admit that it’s a glib and naive suggestion. But also, no, I’m foggy as to why it’s “worse”. The upside I see is that rank & file soldiers and support staff

• marcosdumay 2y ago
  Oh, you just pushed the assumption that that specific military exists in a strong democracy with institutions that are stronger than force into your reasoning. (I wonder if there exist any democracy that strong.) Anyway, the OP was talking about the old communist dictatorships on the Easter Europe. The military forces on those were not composed of people that had it clear on their mind that they worked to protect the little people. Instead, those people were power itself. Creating a government-challenging forum with the people that personify power is a very strong step into eternalizing their tyranny.
  • the_other 2y ago
    I see where you're going. Thanks, that was helpful. I think that in my earlier, admittedly glib comments, I had assumed these things: - strong democracy (as you suggested) - there have been plenty of instances of the nation's army taking control, regardless of democracy or unionisation (e.g. Myanmar) Given the second point, I don't see how unionising makes any difference to the likelihood of a military takeover. But your main point is powerful enough to make me want to think on this all some more.