Harut Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 It is always easy to sympathize with the people, the hopeless peaceful protestors who go out of their way to struggle for their basic rights. It is always easy to demonize the government, the bloodsucking dictators who have the guns. But in the wake of recent years’ “peaceful revolutions” and failed attempts around the world, I try to see things from the government’s perspective. So the questions I ask are... When does the government cave in to the demands of the protestors? What kind of precedent does it set for the state to comply with the demands of unsatisfied citizens? Are there types of demands that should never be considered? Are the acts of people hording out to the streets and those who lead them out justified? And when are they justified? One thing to keep in mind is that in most of the third world countries the idea of consensus, minority rights, and compromises is non-existent. How does this affect the decision that the government has to make? Does this make sense? Yes? No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 In my opinion most uprisings occur because of outside interference, the only one that has merit is the one that has grassroots support and everybody is behind for the same reason. It's very easy to agitate the people and fool them. Most revolutions are just a change of power from one group to the other while the suffering of the people remains the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Iran calls back its Ambassador from Great Britain 23.06.2009 17:34 GMT+04:00 http://panarmenian.net/news/images/ico_print.gif http://panarmenian.net/news/images/ico_mail.gif /PanARMENIAN.Net/ Iranian authorities insist that disorders in their country are backed by United States and Great Britain. On Sunday, they sent away a BBC reporter who allegedly transmitted previously fabricated video materials against the Iranian government. In the meantime, foreign journalists are strictly prohibited to elucidate the country’s political situation. Such strict measures were followed by decision to call back the Iranian Ambassador from Britain. The decision is conditioned by the authorities’ desire to find out whether Great Britain is responsible for the revolt in Iran. The callback is temporary, Iran.ru quotes parliament as saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiner Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think in developed countries protests are very symbolic since there is more of a well developed system (judicial, electoral, etc.) to attack an issue. In the 3rd world protests are much more angry by a largely subdued population who probably have no more patience and no other channel. I think true reform takes place only if at least a couple of people in power or with some significant clout join the protesters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think true reform takes place only if at least a couple of people in power or with some significant clout join the protesters. Unfortunately these people most of the time have their own personal agenda or working for outside powers for a profit, and has nothing to do with the well being of the population. It's like replace one corrupt regime with another one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.