[hamandcheese]

> If there was really true 'progress', then you wouldn't need a one-party system that suppresses all dissent.

This makes no sense. It is possible for a totalitarian government which is threatened by dissent and concepts like "democracy" to also work in the interest of improving overall quality of life.

[viraptor]

If things work so well that everyone's quality or life is improved, why would there be dissent large enough to worry about.

It's the same category as: Why would a company with happy well paid workers be worried about unions and try to stop them forming.

[henrikschroder]

> If things work so well that everyone's quality or life is improved, why would there be dissent large enough to worry about.

Have you met people?

[viraptor]

Sure. There's always going to be someone opposing something. But I'm not aware of cases where a disagreement in an environment good for everyone was large enough that it caused the leadership/government collapse. Similarly on a small scale, the number of grumpy people at companies I worked at scaled more or less with how good things were for everyone.

In other words, if things are good enough, there will be more people disagreeing with the totalitarian part than with the overall conditions.

[GreenWatermelon]

Foreign state-actors love to sow discontent in enemy territories. It doesn't matter what they say to rile up the population and cause instability -- they'll just do it.