[emrahayanoglu]

Because controlling people, who are struggling in their life, are much easier by dictators. Even with religious activities, dictators can make citizens pray for him. if politicians allow you to have lots of chances, then you'll start criticizing and want more. More improvement on life conditions gives you less control on citizens.

I'm Turkish living in Switzerland, I can say that it is the same shit in every developing country and i can ensure you they won't be developed due to the facts that i mentioned above. We need really high numbers of citizens to break the borders.

[donquichotte]

Also, corruption. This is anectotal, but in the countries I've visisted, which include a hand full of ex Soviet republics, the median quality of life seemed to be negatively correlated with the amount of corruption.

[egeozcan]

I'm also Turkish, and believe me, when you have a dictator with his troll army, sucking the life out of the whole country, you'll wish you had the typical corrupt but manageable government from the 90s. The types we have these times would stand next to a kilometer-long list documenting their illegal business and say "we did what needs to be done for our great country" and everyone would cheer while you make escape plans. Hi from Germany(the risk of being falsely labeled as a teenager won't stop me: I<3🇩🇪).

[mamon]

Which means that usual ways of dealing with dicators, i.e. econimic sanctions are counterproductive. They make average people poorer, and then less likely to revolt against their dictator.

Taking communist Poland as an example, people start revolution not when things are worst for them economically, but, paradoxically, when things start getting better, but not fast enough.

Polish people revolted against communists in 1980, which was at the end of the decade of economic growth, fueled by money that Edward Gierek borrowed from western banks.

[danielam]

Something similar happened w.r.t. the French revolution.