[googlryas]

To label the protestors "pro-democracy supporters" is an interesting take. To me, it would be like labeling the Jan 6 protestors as pro-democracy supporters. The people protesting for him were the nationalists and the islamists, and some socialists. Not pro-democracy folk. Mossadegh's party also called for the assassination of the Shah during this time.

Isn't Johnson declaring himself the leader of the nation autocratic behavior? But simply non monarchical?

> The rest is history and we've gotten to where we're at today because the UK and the US interfered with a nascent democracy because...oil.

Mossadegh was on the path to maintain his all-encompassing emergency powers for the rest of his life, if only his policies weren't so boneheaded as to throw the entire country into chaos. I just can't understand what this has to do with democracy.

[teh_klev]

> Mossadegh's party also called for the assassination of the Shah during this time.

Going to have to insist on a citation for that claim.

> Isn't Johnson declaring himself the leader of the nation autocratic behavior? But simply non monarchical?

That's not how it works in the UK. In a general election it's traditionally the leader of the winning party who becomes prime minister, the electorate know this and it generally works out fine. The government of the day can still have their policies and legislation challenged in the houses of parliament (simplistically speaking).

Admittedly, what is anachronistic and anti-democratic are the current shenanigans going on to elect Johnson's replacement where the electorate have no say.

> if only his policies weren't so boneheaded as to throw the entire country into chaos

What's boneheaded about wanting to control your own natural resources and de-colonialise your country?

[googlryas]

My source would be Iran Between Two Revolutions, but that's just going from memory. Maybe I'm confusing some other party, but I am fairly sure it was the National Front.

> What's boneheaded about wanting to control your own natural resources and de-colonialise your country?

No, the goal wasn't boneheaded, but the policies he implemented towards that goal were boneheaded. Nationalizing your #1 and basically only source of revenue which is propping up your society, when you don't actually have the ability to continue operating it by yourself, is boneheaded. Thinking that the British would stick around after you nationalized their assets(one mans nationalization is another mans theft) in order to help you figure it all out, is bone headed.

Likewise, rural people deserve freedom and to not be serfs to local lords, but at the same time, just setting them free and thinking they will be able to manage the land as well as the centralized administrator immediately is boneheaded