Why democracies don't lose insurgencies

[Cavguy]

Fishel's post from another thread came to mind...


With that in mind, I would guess (and this is a pure guess - not even an "eduated" one) that most democracies tend to experience less drastic social upheavals than other forms of government. Using the theory above, less drastic upheaval means less intense insurgency (if any). The weaker insurgency gets defeated.

Interesting, must think on this.

Another uneducated guess: in a democracy, change is less likely to take the form of armed upheaval because a democracy, in theory, gives everyone at least some voice or the perception that they have a voice and they are less likely to lash out. Hitler comes to mind. He didn't wage an insurgency. He got elected.

I think this explains why democratic insurgencies seldom hit "tipping points" where they gain mass support - most of the electorate feels they have a means to resolve political grievance. Those who are "democratic insurgents" are mostly irreconcilable to the existence or shape of the government in some form and thus see no hope in the democratic process. Ethno-sectarian secession comes to mind.

Third thought: an insurgency can gain legitimacy by demonizing a king or oligarchy. Who does it demonize in a democracy? The people? That doesn't sound like much of a rallying cry. "We suck - let's overthrow ourselves!"

Agreed.