Regime vs. Revolution: Which is the ultimate victor?

— Filed under: Politics & Government
It is theoretically possible for regimes to stay in power indefinitely, if they use oppressive tactics in the correct manner
21% (7 votes)
Regardless of the oppressive tactics used by regimes, a successful revolution is always a possibility
79% (27 votes)
Total votes: 34
Winston Smith's picture

Despite what happened with

Despite what happened with the red shirts recently in Thailand, I'd like to think there's always a chance a revolution will work. Maybe that's just the romantic in me, though...

Bernard's picture

If one can keep the people

If one can keep the people focused on fear, one can keep them locked up forever.

Anonymous's picture

What qualifies as an

What qualifies as an "oppressive tactic"? Almost any government would use force to put down a political uprising, at some point. The question is where it is considered necessary and justifiable to use force to preserve the current regime. Even the American government has used it's military to suppress "political activists".

Denis Murrell's picture

Regime vs Revolution

Some examples of regimes that appear to there forever can be found in Burma, North Korea, Belarus, Cuba and Equatorial Guinea. No amount of outside pressure, even from the United nations, seems to be able to dislodge them while the people of those countries are totally powerless against the oppressive regimes they live under. North Korea's erratic dictatorship has been in place now for 65 years, Cuba's since 1959, the Burmese people have had virtually no freedom under successive dictatorships since independence in 1948, while Equatorial Guinea, one of the richest nations in Africa due to its large deposits of oil, has been controlled since 1970 by two members of the Nguema family.

Dan's picture

So would that mean that

So would that mean that regime can last forever? Or that there just hasn't been an effective revolution or revolutionary group in these particular cases?

Denis Murrell's picture

I don't think we could say

I don't think we could say forever. The length of a regime is dependent of many issues...the economy, support by other rogue regimes amongst them. Marcos' regime in The Philippines was ousted pretty easily while Burma's is entrenched, as is North Korea's, because of Chinese support. It is really extremely difficult to unseat some of these tin-pot monsters with the tools the world has at its disposal. As for successful revolutionary groups within those countries, they don't exist in force because of the secret police organizations set up by regimes. It's usually the first organ a regime installs as it is necessary to quell all popular discontent to stay in power. Lenin realized that. So did Stalin. And Adolf, of course

Dan's picture

I'm going to take this to

I'm going to take this to mean that, in your opinion, if a regime uses the right tactics they can remain in power indefinitely. Is that correct?

Denis Murrell's picture

We cannot say forever. The

We cannot say forever. The length of a regime cannot be easily estimated. Often it depends on outside influences, in particular the support of other, powerful nations, but they can last for a very long time. Look at North Korea...1945 until today. Castro's Cuba...1959 and still intact, these days propped up by Chavez, President of Venezuela, but when the USSR collapsed in 1989/1990, Cuba's regime struggled to survive for a time. That was an interesting time. Suddenly, and without much warning, the entire eastern bloc of Soviet regimes imploded. We rarely see the ending so many odourous regimes within such a narrow time frame.