[udue73uru]

It seems like the interesting question is what happens after total authoritarianism. I know many here find the news out of China nightmarish but most of China is on the mainland and the mainland Chinese, while by no means flourishing in utopia, are pretty content on average compared to where they were in the past. This isn't meant to endorse China by any means but if the west is going to keep espousing the uplifting effects of democracy they're going to need some actual benefits to point to eventually since right now the main perk is friendlier trade relations. Latin American democracy is a joke because they love populists (no one actually studying them blames the intervention memes), the EU is rife with corruption and the U.S. is strong but you can be strong without being a democracy. So why should an aspiring African government, for example, strive for Democracy rather than persuing the Chinese model?

[pasabagi]

Democracy developed in a world of totalitarian regimes, and mostly thrived because having officials vulnerable to election cuts down on corruption and incompetence while building government legitimacy and stability.

Totalitarian states tend to have a good run, where they have a good leader and energetic administration, then they become lethargic and dysfunctional, and because there's no mechanism to correct this, they start falling apart. (However, this can take centuries).

As an aside, I don't think the West has ever been particularly keen on democracy. I think Israel is the only democracy that has ever received substantial military and economic support. For dictatorships, this kind of support is basically routine (see Egypt, for a typical example).

[udue73uru]

Those democracies didn't just emerge in spite of totalitarians though, they emerged because of them and the stability they established. Stable conditions historically lead to democracy but democracy in uncertain circumstances segues into stability much more rarely. Yes corruption is a problem for totalitarians but cracking down on corruption has been a growing aspect of the Chinese model for exactly that reason (whether or not they'll succeed is another matter but it's incorrect to automatically assume that a totalitarian state will be blind to the problem by default). Further, those democracies emerged in a wildly different power climate. A modernized military operating without any rules of engagement is not going to get overthrown by its people when over half the population is content.

[pasabagi]

I think the precondition for stability is a strong civil society, and clear traditions about what constitutes legitimacy. Democracy fosters both of these. Dictatorship can foster both in the case of an 'enlightened despot', but it's often the case that the despot is incompetent, or worse.

If you look at transitions like the english civil war, or the french revolution, the clear precondition of revolution is not 'stability', as you think, but rather systemic dysfunction compounded by incompetent leadership. This kind of situation is one which democracies, in theory, should be much less vulnerable to.

Your ideas about the relative balance of power between state and people make some sense, I think, but they only matter when the threat is internal dissent. Most of the states in modern europe had a form of republicanism enforced on them by the French, who were able to invade all their neighbors because their republican government was (while very dysfunctional) more efficient and able to field talented officers and large armies.

A modernised military, moreover, consists of normal people - and they will also feel the disillusionment and apathy that grips really dysfunctional regimes. Saudi Arabia, for example, fields armies of terrible soldiers, using the most advanced weapons available.

China is an interesting and very weird state, because it's a very old civilization with deep roots, with very different basic ideas to the west, and they have turned marxism into a kind of managerial culture for an extremely capitalist society. I don't know if they will follow any of the typical patterns that totalitarian states follow. You can't really use the USSR as a point of comparison, because the USSR was a very European project, coming directly out of the enlightenment, and the western political tradition. Nor would Korea make sense, since they were colonized, and both North and South represent different reactions to colonial subjugation.

[biscotti]

Well that's certainly one take. Charles had a bit of a complex sure but you have to understand the context of the time in that Cromwells foreign co-conspirators were demanding nothing less than his head.

The precondition of the English civil war in my opinion was more the funds that facilitated it promised by financiers from Amsterdam who ultimately went on to be granted charter to found the BoE.

As you know the result of this civil war was to wreck the fine castles, history and heritage of the English. Destroy many a dynasty and teach the Irish to hate the Brits for all eternity.

Issac D'Israeli produced a worthwhile read on Charles [1] if you'd like to know more on his character and quarry.

[1] https://archive.org/details/commentariesonli03disruoft/page/...

[biscotti]

The democracy of Britain was foisted upon us by D'Israeli following his deposition of Robert Peel.

The teeth was taken from all monarchies, or BDFLs, after Bolsheviks were sent from Germany to murder Tsar Nicholas and his family in an act that ultimately condemned 66m Russians.

In my opinion if you want a stable democracy you enfranchise those who would look to a future beyond their own. e.g. one vote per family. If you franchise those who live for today with not a stake in the future democracy becomes not a viable form of governance.

[cafard]

Benjamin Disraeli threw Peel off his horse? Who knew? And let me say that your orthography leads me to wonder what axes you have to grind.

[biscotti]

No particular axe. I would just rather survive the Great Filter. Wouldn't you?