Why democracies don't lose insurgencies

[Bob's World]

It's really not about "Democracy" at all, and I find very dangerous broad proclamations such as:

"Democracies never fight each other!" or "Democracies never lose insurgency!"

The reason being that some huge importance is then placed on democracy itself, which leads to dangerous policies, such as the one embarked under the Bush administration of promoting and imposing one form of governance that we think is best. To me that always seemed a little too much like what we were so opposed to the Soviets doing during the Cold War; and also very counter to the American principles of Self Determination that are codified in our Declaration of Independence and that shaped our foreign policies all the way up through the end of WWII.

So, I think one gets to this concept of why insurgency don't fare well in democracies far better by starting not with the form of governance in place, but instead by going to what causes insurgency in the first place.

Many focus on human aspects at the bottom end of Maslow's hierarchy as being causal. Lack of security, hunger, etc. But history really simply does not support that as being the true cause. Many people are widely hungry or fearful in their nations, and are loyal citizens. So it must be something else.

Many then point to dynamic leaders that are opposed to the government, and the ideologies they use as being causal. Yet this too falls short of any historical study conducted with even a basic understanding of the nature of insurgency. If the populace is not ripe for insurgency no amount of ideology or charisma will incite it to insurrection. As I have stated before, the Pied Piper is a fairly tale.

So where I am currently at is that insurgency is caused by poor governance, that being:Some situation or condition, real or perceived, that is so egregious to some significant segment of the populace, that they also perceive they cannot resolve through legitimate means, so as to move them to seek change through illegitimate means.

The safety valve that democracy provides is that if it is a democracy that the populace has confidence in, then it provides the hope of addressing such conditions through legitimate means. The key is that other forms of governance that also provide some mechanism of legitimately addressing such grievances will also effectively deter insurgency.

This is why I am a firm believer of promoting self-determination. This in of itself implies some democratic process in determining what form of government one wants to live under. To have someone else impose democracy is really not very democratic at all. So if a populace votes for dictatorship, then they have exercised democracy and achieved the form of government they desire. Any government desired by a populace is superior to any form of government imposed upon them. Likewise, any country that is seen as an enabler of such self-determination is far less likely to find it self on the blame line (target list) of a populace that drifts into conditions of poor governance than a country that has directed the establishment or sustained artificially the despotic power.

Legitimacy and goodness. Promote goodness for others, but avoid taking on a perception of legitimacy for their governance. This strikes at causation. A good democracy achieved through self-determination is very resilient to insurgency for this reason. It self-corrects "poorness" and it has "legitimacy" that is fully recognized and accepted by a majority of the populace.

[Schmedlap]

So where I am currently at is that insurgency is caused by poor governance, that being:Some situation or condition, real or perceived, that is so egregious to some significant segment of the populace, that they also perceive they cannot resolve through legitimate means, so as to move them to seek change through illegitimate means.

That sounds about right to me. I would only add that "poor" is pretty relative; relative to the culture. If a government demonstrates no particular acumen for governance, then it might resort to changing the culture, so that the tipping point of perceived injustice is defined downward. For example, North Korea's culture may have become so obsessed with the ideas of unity at any cost and subservience to their potbellied ruler that no matter how poorly they are governed, they will accept that poor governance as a necessary evil to retain their national unity. Eating tree bark? Babies dying for lack of immunizations? Childrens' growth stunted due to malnutrition? All due to a closed, command-economy administered by boobs? No problem for North Koreans. Transpose that level of incompetent governance here in the US and there would be blood in the streets. We get outraged if ATM fees go up another quarter and the gov't refuses to intervene.

[Bob's World]

"Poor" is absolutely relative. It only matters what the populace in question believes. An outsider's opinion or standards of what is "good" for them, or what they think an "effective" government does is interesting, but should never be the basis for a FID effort to help prevent or quell insurgency in some other country.

North Korea is an interesting example because it is one of the few completely state controlled dictatorships in the world that can still control information to it populace as well as the populace itself. A populace experiencing condtions of poor governance is easily suppressed by such a government from rising up. They are also far less likely to realize how bad their situation is relative to everyone else in the world and not realize that it is "poor" governance. It just is what it is. As the people of the North come to realize how different their world is from that that has emerged in the South, it is only a matter of time before the people will effect change to end the current system. (I.e. there will then be causation, so all required then will be the elements of motivation to get things moving. Some event, some leader, some ideology...