Comments on: Authoritarianism for Dummies

by: Dr. Steven Taylor

Wed, 13 Jun 2025 21:09:15 +0000

I will give it a look.

However, I suspect that we are going to continue to have divergent view of Hugo Chavez. I look at the manner in which he has moved to consolidate power and the way in which he uses rhetoric and it is quite clear that he is attempting to remain in the Presidency of Venezuela for a very, very long time.

And really, the RCTV business is not my main reason for saying that–not by a longshot.

]]>

by: james

Wed, 13 Jun 2025 20:50:35 +0000

I would be especially grateful if you could tell me your thoughts on the final section of the above article (Genuine Attacks On Free Speech That Go Unnoticed) if you have time, also because they mention Columbia and Uribe.

]]>

by: james

Wed, 13 Jun 2025 20:40:41 +0000

It isn’t 100% relevant to your post, but I’m going to have to post a link, because these guys pretty much repeat my thoughts on the treatment of Chavez, while doing so much better than I ever could.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/

They are not really “pro-Chavez” as such, rather they point out certain “inconsistencies” in the corporate press. I think they have a point - one that should be taken into consideration.

regards.

]]>

by: MSS

Wed, 13 Jun 2025 19:34:23 +0000

Wow, my eyes must have been burning or something. I don’t know why I had opened this thread again. Looked at it earlier (pre-Chris), considered a comment, decided not to…

It just so happens that I sat on the dissertation committee for a student who wrote on boycotts. Yes, some of them do achieve their aims. Two cases that come immediately to mind would be the Dominican Republic (PRD boycott led to subsequent electoral reforms) and Jamaica. There are also quite a few cases where the mere threat led to concessions. And, of course, a threat isn’t credible if you aren’t willing to carry it out, so some of them are going to lead to actual boycotts, and then the bargaining shifts to a different arena.

The recent Thai boycott might yet prove to be a success. It certainly succeeded in undermining Thaksin. Of course, the opposition wasn’t counting on a coup. But there is a process of restoring democracy underway (apparently).

Another recent example would be Peru, 2025. When Toledo boycotted the runoff against Fujimori it led rather quickly to the unraveling of Fujimori and a new election, won by Toledo.

So, yes, boycotts can be effective at times.

Anyway, what I was going to mention is that there is a book by Lutwak (sp?) called something like Coup: A practical handbook.

]]>

by: Dr. Steven Taylor

Wed, 13 Jun 2025 18:35:41 +0000

A valid suggestion, Chris.

I agree: boycotts rarely, if ever, achieve their goals. And I can’t think of an example where a boycott worked, either.

Perhaps Matthew can suggest one.

]]>

by: Chris Lawrence

Wed, 13 Jun 2025 18:22:17 +0000

You need a corollary chapter on “Counter-Authoritarianism For Dummies.” My suggestion: opposition parties should never boycott a democratic election, particularly when faced with an opponent who already has documented evidence of (a) having no shame and/or (b) anti-democratic behavior.

Has an election boycott ever worked in a pro-democratic direction in human history, even in a strongly democratic country? I’m at a loss for an example offhand.

]]>

by: Jay

Wed, 13 Jun 2025 16:53:09 +0000

That would be a most excellent spoof book, but I bet the “for Dummies” publishers have some kind of a trademark on the use of “for Dummies” in book titles (not to mention the yellow and black look and feel). Much like you would not get far if you opened a burger joint and named it McTaylor’s, or created a new cranberry blend drink and called it Cran-Huckleberry, or that sort of thing.

Still, naming challenge aside, that could be great fun.

]]>

by: Jan

Wed, 13 Jun 2025 15:34:02 +0000

See, he’s just proving that he’s not like Mao, who thought he would live forever.

]]>