Submitted by rot in AskRaddle

riots and protests seem to last longer in less democratic governments. It's like the western political cycle acts as a type of pressure valve on the peoples anger ever few years. fear motivates most party shifts trump was a reaction to obama, biden and this years senators are a reaction to trump's office. in democracy the fear and panic bubble up until election day then ? back to calm.

14

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ChaosAnarchy wrote (edited )

As a former liberal myself it makes them believe that just they need a different person on there and not that the whole authority system is rotten with power hierarchies.

Honestly, spreading propaganda in schools is very important. There, the lies of democracy are cultured, in the media spread.

9

moonlune wrote

No, the opposite, at least historically. The Chinese empires for example lasted 4000 years while the Athenian democracy lasted only 200 years. And if you average the lifespans through history of all democracies compared to all autocracies you'd probably find that democracies die much faster.

9

Bezotcovschina wrote

True, but Athenian democracy wasn't destroyed by revolt, however, China saw a lot of successful popular rebellions, all resulted in reestablishing the empire in some ways.

List of peasant revolts

9

Majrelende wrote (edited )

Why should we even care about revolt? It's either co-opted or a bloodbath, and usually both. But I certainly think the idea of democracy can destabilise an autocracy, although the opposite can happen as well (e.g. the Nazis).

7

lettuceLeafer wrote

I agree with the sentiment. Tho revolt is fine in some uses. Sometimes it's just used as a synonym for the verb rebel. So there are some cases where the person using it isn't advocating for a revolution. Tho in many cases they are.

Glad to see more anti revolution types. I just wanted to clarify so u and op don't argue past each other over misunderstanding of meaning.

5

d4rk wrote

no form of government is less prone to revolt than anyone else but more often than not Conservative-Imperial states which is on the edge of autocracy but isn't really the most prone to rebellion because of its ability to provide and redistribute wealth to increasingly "ungrateful" next generations.

One of two things often occur to such states, either they lose one part of that classification over the course of generations due to their neocolonies or traditional colonies revolting &or coming to the motherland. Or, it in itself will commit to an event so economically and socially draining that Revolts from within are inevitable. A good example of the former is Britain however in the latter you have Imperial Russia and Germany.

5

zephyr wrote

real democracies (not the many pseudos that exist in africa and asia) are likely to revolt less because the people have more liberties and freedoms and because they are much wealthier than those in most autocracies.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

zephyr wrote

examples of pseudo democracies are those where ballots are unlikely to be correctly counted, where a coup will occur if the wrong person is elected, where fraud is rampant in most aspects of government, where poverty is great and votes are cheaply bought, where opposition leaders are in jail or made ineligible for office, where voting is not secret, where armed guards only allow certain people to vote, where polling places are not accessible, etc.

3

[deleted] wrote

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

That's pretty close to how some people in sierra Leon claim the UN counted votes for an election they ran. Tho it's mostly hearsay

5