• pfried@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    It did not work fictionally. Nobody supports rebels in a democracy. They are rooted out of their communities and punished as terrorists. Only when it was no longer a democracy did the rebellion work. The same is true historically. If the people being oppressed can vote for their rulers, violently attacking them instead always fails.

      • pfried@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Yet Myanmar ,

        Myanmar wasn’t a democracy.

        Thailand ,

        This prime minister was removed by the court, not by violence.

        Nepal , and

        This is the only example you gave of a democratically elected official who was violently overthrown. I said that if you violently overthrow a democratically elected tyrant, the majority will simply democratically install a new tyrant. That’s exactly what happened in Bangladesh, with the same party being elected after it was violently removed. Nepal seems to be a vanishingly a rare counterexample. We’ll see how long that lasts.

        Spain uprooted their oppressors violently without democracy.

        Spain also wasn’t a democracy.

        South Korea kept it’s democracy by taking the tyrant violently .

        Also removed by the court, not by rebel violence.

        It just seems the disconnect is plain old complacency.

        No, if you violently remove a democratically elected official, that official will be democratically replaced with more of the same. Violence doesn’t magically change voters’ minds to agree with you.