![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 9th, 2013 10:36 pmLast week's military action in Egypt makes it clear that the following rule is in effect there:
If there are mass protests, then the military gets to decide what happens next.
There are many countries in which that rule applies now or did in the past. For example, Thailand: In 2008, one political faction put thousands of protesters into the streets and occupied the main international airport in the country. When ordered to remove them, the military refused. After some maneuvering, the government fell. Two years later, a different political faction put thousands of protesters into the streets and occupied the central business district in the capital. When ordered to remove them, the military declared a live fire zone and assaulted the encampment with armored vehicles. The government stayed in power until the next election.
In my opinion, this is not a great rule for a country's politics to have.
If there are mass protests, then the military gets to decide what happens next.
There are many countries in which that rule applies now or did in the past. For example, Thailand: In 2008, one political faction put thousands of protesters into the streets and occupied the main international airport in the country. When ordered to remove them, the military refused. After some maneuvering, the government fell. Two years later, a different political faction put thousands of protesters into the streets and occupied the central business district in the capital. When ordered to remove them, the military declared a live fire zone and assaulted the encampment with armored vehicles. The government stayed in power until the next election.
In my opinion, this is not a great rule for a country's politics to have.