4 ms·
The issue with regime change is whether there's enough political cohesion in a country's population after a despot / autocrat is removed. "The opposition" is r
by ethbr1 10mo ago
The issue with regime change is whether there's enough political cohesion in a country's population after a despot / autocrat is removed.
"The opposition" is rarely a large and representative enough group to effect national power transition. (Btw, thanks for flagging that incorrectly as affect, Apple)
Especially in multi-ethnic states, most cohesive national identities are forged through extremely popular singular leaders.
Unfortunately, those are exactly the same leaders external regime-change initiators are wary of (too independent).
- jacquesm 10mo ago> Especially in multi-ethnic states, most cohesive national identities are forged through extremely popular singular leaders. And before you know it you have a genocide on your hands.
- ethbr1 10mo agoSometimes, but it can go the other way too. Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture, Simon Bolivar, Giuseppe Mazzini, Otto von Bismarck, Mustafa Atatürk, Gamal Nasser
- delabay 10mo agoThis year's winner of the nobel prize is highly organized and ran a parallel election campaign, which was obviously dismissed by the Maduro regime. There is a slim possibility of a peaceful transition given the democratic efforts underway in Venezuela for many years at this point.
- estearum 10mo agoPOTUS just said she's not involved, won't be involved, doesn't have the support necessary to lead. Who does? Unclear. His plan appears to be: "oil companies come in, sell the oil" and I'm seriously not exaggerating.
- ethbr1 10mo ago> His plan appears to be: "oil companies come in, sell the oil" In terms of nation-building, it's not the worst plan. See Carville's "It's the economy, stupid." Popular support of any government is mostly (a) quality of life & (b) individual freedom. Quality of life is directly correlated to the economy and public finances. If someone can quickly boost Venezuelan oil production, and therefore state revenue, then all sorts of social funding programs become feasible. The issue with autocracies is that they selectively enrich key supporter groups (internal police, military) at the expense of others (wider population). If you can substantially boost public revenue, then you don't have to make a tradeoff -- everyone gets more! And there are certainly worse beginnings for new governments. (All of this ignoring the flagrant violation of international law, international ramifications vis-a-vis Taiwan, climate change, etc.)
- estearum 10mo agoI’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I’m saying it appears to be the entire idea, which makes it a bad one. He was asked “who will govern” and “when will there be elections” and “will there be boots on the ground” over and over. His answers were “I don’t know”.
- ethbr1 10mo agoWell, Trump is probably the least qualified person in the administration to ask that question of, while at the same time no one wanted to risk contradicting his fancies on recorded television. A bad look, but I seriously doubt the state department doesn't have some sort of plan for continuity of government. Especially since, in critical difference with post-Hussein Iraq, no one in this administration seems ideologically opposed to working with the old guard, if they put on new colors. Would be very surprised if the remaining elements of the government aren't put in temporary charge with guidelines (no killing protestors, freeing political prisoners, monitored elections on X date, etc.), then things are left business as usual. With additional strikes if anyone tries to buck the system. But higher placed members of corrupt regimes tend to be pretty pragmatic about their own skins when the winds shift, so I'd be surprised if anyone goes to the mat for a leader who's already been extradited.