2 ms·
In a stable democracy, whenever there are elections, the losers accept that the elections were fair and they lost. If there are reasons to believe that the elec
by jltsiren 2y ago
In a stable democracy, whenever there are elections, the losers accept that the elections were fair and they lost. If there are reasons to believe that the elections were not fair, or if the losers refuse to admit that the elections were fair and they lost, the system is unstable.
Peaceful transition of power is the most important factor in the long-term stability of any system of governance. Whenever a leader loses legitimacy or dies, there must be a process to select a successor. If the outcome of the process is contested, the system is at a high risk of collapsing in the power struggles of its elites. It's far more common for a state to fail due to internal power struggles than external threats.
- pc86 2y agoHe left office. He wasn't kicked out (other than the election of course), it's not like Secret Service had to drag him out of the Oval. He left. He also went through the whole process again and we know how that turned out. To imply that the US is an "unstable democracy" is laughable.
- jltsiren 2y agoThe US was already unstable in 2000. Once courts get involved in determining the outcome of elections, it's a sure sign that the system is no longer functioning properly. Instability does not mean that a collapse is imminent. It means that further shocks may cause a collapse more easily than in a stable system. It makes a collapse more likely in the long term, which in this context means something like a human lifetime.
- illiac786 2y agoLet’s see if we still laugh in a couple of years…