Could you point me to secularly resources I should read on these revolutions?
But if you’re taking about the pressure voters put on elected officials, I’m all for it. But I’d hardly call that a revolution. That’s just how the system is designed to work.
In the example of Papua New Guinea, there were major dissatisfactions with money’s role in politics, and LPV was granted as a concession. Had it not been conceded, the system stood risk of destabilization.
Major beneficial changes do not occur because people agree they are good. Major changes do not occur because the public asks nicely. Major changes occur when the ruling class recognizes the risk to their power if they do not bend, lest they break.
Concessions were made in the context of struggle.
Could you elaborate?
Concessions were made in the context of struggle, ie without concessions there would be more pressure.
Please, read theory.
Could you point me to secularly resources I should read on these revolutions?
But if you’re taking about the pressure voters put on elected officials, I’m all for it. But I’d hardly call that a revolution. That’s just how the system is designed to work.
I didn’t call them revolutions. Please read theory, history books, and my replies.
Sure then, give scholarly reading advice for revolutionary pressure in those events
In the example of Papua New Guinea, there were major dissatisfactions with money’s role in politics, and LPV was granted as a concession. Had it not been conceded, the system stood risk of destabilization.
Major beneficial changes do not occur because people agree they are good. Major changes do not occur because the public asks nicely. Major changes occur when the ruling class recognizes the risk to their power if they do not bend, lest they break.
But was that risk to their power from a armed revolution, or from their proponents getting voted out?