tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post2977555999498369785..comments2024-03-28T00:11:33.489-04:00Comments on bensozia: Are Democracies More Stable than Dictatorships?Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-35417816062576263522015-09-29T18:14:05.333-04:002015-09-29T18:14:05.333-04:00You're right, that would be a problem. I think...You're right, that would be a problem. I think a lot of political scientists say the British regime dates to 1688, but that begs a lot of questions.<br /><br />There can also be lots of turmoil without regime change, for example in France between 1871 and 1940.<br /><br />But anything I think Obama was wrong, and democracy is no guarantee of stability; indeed I am sure that under some circumstances it promotes conflict.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-48409171254491328882015-09-29T07:24:36.765-04:002015-09-29T07:24:36.765-04:00It seems to me the question of "duration"...It seems to me the question of "duration" would be as bad, or even worse, of a bugbear than which category one would put a regime in. Would the fall of Norway to the Nazis represent a break in the duration of Norway's democracy? How about the fall of the Third Republic? Britain claims, more or less, one continuous regime since at least 1066, if not Alfred; if we don't honor that, where do we put the break(s)? How about the Roman Empire? Do we give that one continuous regime history from Augustus to Romulus Augustulus, and ignore the civil wars and changes between? You could debate forever, where to put the breaks.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.com