For your first example, you chose the example I would have chosen to argue against democracy. And you will likely enjoy my citations.
The democrats that overthrew the Czar represent some of the most hilarious failings of democracy imaginable. To a great extent, the Russian revolutions looks as if it had been choreographed by Monty Python.
One of the first great laws passed by the Menshevik (read squishy liberal) Duma was the infamous “Order #1”, that abolished the rank structure in the Russian army. In the middle of World War I. All decisions were to be made by voice vote.
And as you might imagine, the most popular vote-getter was “Run away!”
As far as the Duma itself, it was entirely Menshevik except for a small group of Bolsheviks. And, with respect to majority vote, no matter the situation, they had not created a quorum rule, which the Bolsheviks soon discovered.
So when the Duma was brought to order, the Bolsheviks immediately started disrupting, by blowing horns, slamming desktops, throwing paper, screaming through bullhorns, etc. And in disgust, the entire group of Menshaviks would storm out, leaving the Bolsheviks as the majority.
So taking the podium, they brought up a stack of laws, which they passed, one after the other, by unanimous vote. The Mensheviks remained too offended to rescind any of them, much like RINO Republicans rarely rescind the excesses of the Democrats.
They also had no pattern recognition, so made this same mistake repeatedly.
And leading it all, as the president of democratic Russia, was the very “flappable” Alexander Kerensky, who combined the policy skills of Jimmy Carter at his very worst, with the emotional stability of Pee-Wee Herman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerensky
Were it not for Kerensky, the Bolsheviks would likely never have really ruled.
Kerensky was so frightened by the Bolsheviks, who were not a particularly powerful force in St. Petersburg, that he feared they would storm his presidential office and harm him, though unarmed.
So he sent a message to a senior general at the front, telling him to prepare to advance on St. Petersburg, to protect Kerensky, if needed.
The general was very right wing, and decided that Kerensky was so pathetic, that he, the general, should march on St. Petersburg anyway, displace Kerensky and the Duma in a military coup, and declare himself Czar.
On hearing he was doing so, Kerensky panicked again, and ordered the police arsenal opened, and that rifles should be issued to, of all people, the Bolsheviks. This is where they got the rifles they eventually used to overthrow the democratic government. But they did not use them to go fight the general’s army.
Instead, they lined the streets, as best they could, and shouted at the generals conscript army to desert and join them. And they did, by the thousands.
There is a famous photo of the general and a handful of his officers, all that was left of his army, arriving in St. Petersburg, only to be arrested by the police.
Kerensky, btw, ran away from the revolution and ended up in the US, giving lectures at Stanford, where he would lie his head off, and blame everyone but himself for Russia becoming communist. When he died in 1970, the Russian Orthodox churches refused to bury him.
(I’ll include other comments on another post.)
Reminds me of one of the great scenes in Doctor Zhivago, when the soldiers are encouraged to join the Reds, and then turn on the generals.
You need to also add how the factionalism was a key component
Also, the same tragedy occured with the overthrowing of the Shah of Iran
I blame the autocratic rulers for causing an extreme reaction.
This is like what happened to Charles I, Louis XVI (ok, it was actually a reaction to Louis XIV) and Nicholas II (ok, a reaction to his father, g-father etc. etc.)
Well said. As I see it, there are 2 kinds of constitutional monarchs today:
It is interesting to note that the latter two invited kings (as did the former after the failure of the Interrugnum)
If someone was to become a constitutional monarch in the US, who would it be?
It can't be white or black or latino as the other "races" would object
It can't be a particular religion or others would object
The ideal "constitutional monarch" would be someone of a race and religion unknown in the US or with negligent demographics -- say a Khoisan bushman
But what would be the use of this?
All in all, the idea of a monarchy in the US today is logically a no-go.
Well said. As I see it, there are 2 kinds of constitutional monarchs today:
It is interesting to note that the latter two invited kings (as did the former after the failure of the Interrugnum)
If someone was to become a constitutional monarch in the US, who would it be?
It can't be white or black or latino as the other "races" would object
It can't be a particular religion or others would object
The ideal "constitutional monarch" would be someone of a race and religion unknown in the US or with negligent demographics -- say a Khoisan bushman
But what would be the use of this?
All in all, the idea of a monarchy in the US today is logically a no-go.
No argument from me on that score. Only the farce of handing Vietnam over to Hochimin came close.