You’re not wrong, but also give me an example of ANY country that doesn’t resort to authoritarianism when the government is threatened by a plurality of citizens.
There are plenty of governments out there that aren’t authoritarian. What do you mean when you say “the government is threatened by a plurality of citizens?” What is the nature of the threat in question? A democratically-elected government that puts down an armed rebellion from part of its populace doesn’t magically become authoritarian simply because it used forced to maintain its existence in response to a domestic threat.
I mean that there is a realistic existential threat placed on the system of government, by a large part of the population.
By plurality, I mean that the largest segment of a population (even if it’s not a majority).
You’re telling me that govt’s that put down a large rebellion don’t then start introducing authoritan laws like monitoring communication, restricting free speech, and targeting non-violent sympathizers?
They asked for an example of ANY country that doesn’t resort to authoritarianism when the government is threatened by a plurality of citizens. You can choose any currently functioning democracy after a tight election.
The question becomes then, are those stable democracies threatened? I would argue no, that you’re using irrelevant examples to prove your position.
American capitalism was threatened to an extent by Bernie’s campaign and a contemporary cnn headline compared his “rise” to that of Hitler. So you tell me. Do they get defensive when actual leftist principles are on the line. Looks to me that it is the case.
You’re not wrong, but also give me an example of ANY country that doesn’t resort to authoritarianism when the government is threatened by a plurality of citizens.
There are plenty of governments out there that aren’t authoritarian. What do you mean when you say “the government is threatened by a plurality of citizens?” What is the nature of the threat in question? A democratically-elected government that puts down an armed rebellion from part of its populace doesn’t magically become authoritarian simply because it used forced to maintain its existence in response to a domestic threat.
I mean that there is a realistic existential threat placed on the system of government, by a large part of the population. By plurality, I mean that the largest segment of a population (even if it’s not a majority).
You’re telling me that govt’s that put down a large rebellion don’t then start introducing authoritan laws like monitoring communication, restricting free speech, and targeting non-violent sympathizers?
…any democracy? Different governments get voted out of power constantly. A lot of countries elections are almost 50/50
I would say you’re arguing from ignorance then. The civil war in America happened because slavers didn’t like the outcome of an election.
They asked for an example of ANY country that doesn’t resort to authoritarianism when the government is threatened by a plurality of citizens. You can choose any currently functioning democracy after a tight election.
The question becomes then, are those stable democracies threatened? I would argue no, that you’re using irrelevant examples to prove your position.
American capitalism was threatened to an extent by Bernie’s campaign and a contemporary cnn headline compared his “rise” to that of Hitler. So you tell me. Do they get defensive when actual leftist principles are on the line. Looks to me that it is the case.
Ukrainian stable democracy seems very threatened at the moment. I am not too into American politics so i dont know about the Bernie situation.
Democracy itself gets voted out, without any resistance?