Regime Change & Democracy

Jan 21, 2025
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them…”
Democracy is in fashion these days. Virtually every country in the world declares itself to be ‘democratic’, if not a democracy per se. A few even include the word in the nation’s name; for example:
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
Democratic Republic of the Congo
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal
Were I asked to list 5 countries that exemplify ‘democratic values’, my list might differ from the above…considerably.
Democratic regimes understand that all political power ultimately rests with the citizens of a nation. Therefore, the true test of any ‘democratic’ institution is its willingness to cede power back to the people, even at the expense of its own institutional survival.
It is one thing to oscillate between Party A and Party B within a stable political system; it is another to dissolve or transform that ‘system’, i.e. the institutions of government themselves.
Regime change is not a matter of counting ballots; it is about changing hearts. Successful change necessarily involves the 3 immutable values: Truth, Justice, Beauty. Regime change requires that these values be reapplied if not redefined. Conversely, it is when these values are questioned or probed that we know that the possibility of regime change exists.
“What is Truth?” asked Pontius Pilate. Today, we ask, “Where is Truth?” The world is drowning in information but how much of that information is useable? Where do we go for information we can trust?
Here too, we’re not just talking about Fox News vs. MSNBC. We’re talking about hip hop, Bible study, Shark Tank, Tik-Tok, TED Talks, and Podcasts. Drowning in unverified and mostly unverifiable information, we rely on the source for authentication. For the first time in recent history, at least, Americans do not rely on common sources of information. There is no longer any final court of appeal where ‘facts’ are concerned.
Likewise, Justice for most Americans is no longer whatever the courts (formal and informal) say it is. Over the past 70 years, courts have no longer merely applied existing cannons of justice; more and more they are being asked to answer the question, “What is just?”
Intriguingly, many high profile cases ask the court to define or redefine Justice in particular contexts. Often these cases seem to involve irreconcilable conflicts between previously accepted values: civil rights vs. states rights, security vs. free speech, the rights of the accused vs. the victims, the scope of the right of self-defense, etc. These sorts of contractions are a sign that we may need to rethink our basic premises.
Finally, Beauty, the most subjective of the three. The character of every historical epoch is reflected in its art, but the nature of that reflection can usually be assessed only in retrospect.
‘Regime Change’, at least the way I’m using the term, must in the main be non-violent; any violence must be incidental. Regime Change cannot be imposed; it must be the organic outgrowth of shifting popular consensus.
Yes, I'm familiar with this concept - it's often called the "3.5% rule" and was popularized by Erica Chenoweth has proposed that analyzed historical nonviolent protests and civil resistance movements, finding that no movement that achieved active participation from at least 3.5% of the population failed to bring about significant change.
However, it's important to note that this isn't a magical threshold that guarantees success. The research was specifically focused on nonviolent movements aimed at regime change or territorial independence. The effectiveness of this percentage could vary significantly depending on the type of social change being sought and the specific context.
Would you like to explore any particular aspect of this research or discuss how it might apply to specific social movements?
Are there any examples of successful regime change in modern times? How about Eastern Europe c. 1989? Most of the Warsaw Pact countries and many of the former Soviet Republics accepted displacement with barely a shot fired. Ironically, this may have been communism’s finest hour.
These moribund regimes allowed themselves to be replaced by systems reflecting extremely divergent ideas and values. The people spoke and it was not the place of the state to pretend otherwise. The options were clear: step aside as demanded or give up any pretense to ever having been democratic.
Another example? Brexit. Even though the major political parties were against British Independence, it happened anyway. The people spoke…and the deep state stepped aside and the map of Europe changed.
Yet another example? Yesterday’s (January 20th) peaceful transition of power in the United States. Of course, this is scheduled to occur, or not, every 4 years, but I think most readers will agree with me that this time it feels ‘different’.
In retrospect, things changed the moment Donald Trump descended the escalator in Trump Tower (2015). For 10 years, a war has waged on TV screens, PTA halls, and barrooms but for now at least the outcome seems ‘settled’…and not just because Trump won the rematch. It is the way Trump won that makes this regime change and not just the usual quadrennial reshuffle.
Let’s cut out the noise – voter turnout, 3rd party candidates, etc. Let’s just talk actual votes for the Republican and Democratic nominees. In 2020, the Democratic nominee (Biden) received 7,000,000 more popular votes than the Republican nominee (Trump). In 2024, Trump received 2,000,000 more votes than Harris, a swing of 9,000,000 votes or about 6% of the total votes cast.
Oversimplifying, a net 3,000,000 Biden voters switched to Trump while another 3,000,000 simply stayed home (50,000 in the City of Philadelphia alone). The manner of Trump’s victory is key here. Trump did not ‘pick-off’ a few ‘battleground states’ as expected. He won them all, some by big margins.
In fact, Trump improved his position relative to the Democratic nominee in every one of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia, and I was hard pressed to find a single demographic category where Harris improved over Biden.
For all practical purposes, Trump improved his position with both genders, all ethic groups, all income groups, all educational levels. That is what makes this election a Regime Change. (The last time this happened was in 1932, inaugurating a half century of the New Deal.)
Now the forces of the Ancien Regime have two choices: (1) Join the political process and seek to influence, if not control, the evolution of public policy, or (2) Withdraw, metaphorically speaking, into the mountains to wage guerrilla war. For the sake of the nation and the world, I hope they choose Door #1.
Keep the conversation going.
1. Click here to comment on this TWS.
2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link.
3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers; click here to view out Writers’ Specs.
Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free!
- the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine.
