Autocracies can achieve operational surprise, but democracies have a deeper strategic advantage: genuine, voluntary dedication. When attacked, citizens of democracies, from all walks of life, rush to defend their nation with an enthusiasm that cannot be commanded or coerced in an authoritarian state.
Liberal democracy’s rise coincided with the need for a productive populace for economic and military strength. As AI replaces human labor and soldiers, the state's pragmatic incentive to empower citizens and protect their freedoms disappears, risking a return to authoritarianism.
According to Ken Burns, democracy was not the revolution's intention but its consequence. Initially an "elitist program," the leaders realized they needed to enlist the masses to win. This forced them to extend the language of liberty to everyone, which, once spoken, could not be taken back and ultimately applied to all.
Authoritarian leaders like Hugo Chavez systematically dismantle democracy from within after winning elections. They replace competent individuals in the military and government with those who are absolutely loyal, destroying meritocracy to ensure the state apparatus serves the regime, not the people.
A potential invasion of Taiwan by China is less likely due to internal military purges and dissent than to US military posturing. An authoritarian leader like Xi Jinping cannot launch a complex invasion if he doesn't trust his own generals, making domestic instability a powerful, albeit unintentional, deterrent.
Western education systems have spent decades teaching students that nationalism is dangerous and universal humanity is the true political community. This creates a strategic weakness, as states cannot expect these same generations to instantly adopt a strong national identity and be willing to fight for their country when a geopolitical crisis demands it.
The failure of Western nation-building highlights a key principle: establishing durable institutions must precede the promotion of democratic ideals. Without strong institutional frameworks for order, ideals like "freedom" can lead to chaos. America’s own success was built on inherited institutions, a luxury many developing nations lack, making the export of democracy exceptionally difficult.
Contrary to their image of strength, authoritarian figures often rely on bluff and "anticipatory obedience." When confronted with direct, organized resistance, they frequently lack a follow-up plan and retreat, revealing their inherent fragility and dependence on their opposition's inaction.
The defining characteristic of a functional democracy is not who wins, but the behavior of those who lose. A democracy is healthy only when the losing side accepts the result as legitimate and agrees to compete again in the future. The moment losers begin to systematically challenge the fairness of the process, the entire democratic foundation is at risk.
Rather than being a problem, public criticism of the military serves a vital function. It forces politicians and leaders to rigorously test their hypotheses and ethics, preventing a descent into an unchecked, aggressive "Team America world police" mentality.
Unlike nascent revolutionary states that rally against foreign attacks, late-stage dictatorships are weakened by military defeats. Iran's recent humiliations by Israel and the US have exposed incompetence and eroded the public's perception of strength, fueling protests and accelerating the regime's demise.