> Unfortunately, history tells us that almost all major gains in freedom come, at one point, through violent conflict/sacrifice.
No, it doesn't. Recent history tells us exactly the opposite:
1) Rise of democracy in Latin America in the 70s and 80s (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Brazil)
2) Collapse of communism on Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s.
3) Democracy in Eastern Asia in the 80s (Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Pakistan).
4) Nigeria, Spain, Greece
These were achieved through pacific means. The cases of dictatorships that became democracies through violence are very few: Portugal, Romania...
Prior history of violent conflict is precisely what led to dictatorships hardening (leftist guerrilla groups in Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, tentative coup in Indonesia, etc.)
Also, violent reaction against dictatorships quite often leads to other dictatorships (e.g.: Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran).
Edit: again, my point is that violent reaction against oppressive regimes is foolish and leads to the opposite of freedom. Violence is the authoritarians' favorite game because it provides them an excuse to do what they do best: brutal repression. You are already loosing when you play their preferred game.
"The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra sucia) is the name used by the military junta or civic-military dictatorship of Argentina (Spanish: dictadura cívico-militar de Argentina) for the period of United States-backed state terrorism[1][2][3] in Argentina[4][5] from 1976 to 1983 as a part of Operation Condor, during which military and security forces and right-wing death squads in the form of the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (AAA, or Triple A)[6] hunted down any political dissidents and anyone believed to be associated with socialism, left-wing Peronism or the Montoneros movement.[7][8][9][10]
Up to 30,000 people disappeared, of whom many were impossible to report formally due to the nature of state terrorism."
AFAIK it didn't have any death but it was sparked by a military coup d'état by lower rank officials. Later on the people on the streets supported the officials and demanded democracy.
So, when guys with guns depose a dictator it gets a little harder to argue that it is very peaceful.
However I thank you for bring up the fact that there was no blood.
The Yugoslav wars were mostly ethnic conflicts that happened after the collapse of communism, not exactly a democratic revolution.
I concede in Romania, but that is an atypical case. The overall case of collapse communism was peacefull: Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechozlovakia, Bulgaria, Albania, ...
No, the way to 1989 wasn't all that peaceful. For example there was the martial law and repressions against "Solidarity" during 198x in Poland. And you forgot the 1968. The resolve of the East Europeans in 1989 was pretty clear that if USSR brings in tanks the people will continue to stand up even in the face of the tanks, and it will be 1968 all over the place. The 1968 provided credibility to that. Thus the USSR and the regimes supported by it backed finally down.
We're falling into splitting straws on semantics here.
All repressive regimes repress, that's what makes them authoritarian. But a violent and successful reaction by the opposing/democratic forces implying a large number of deaths is actually quite rare. This is my point.
No, it doesn't. Recent history tells us exactly the opposite:
1) Rise of democracy in Latin America in the 70s and 80s (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Brazil)
2) Collapse of communism on Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s.
3) Democracy in Eastern Asia in the 80s (Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Pakistan).
4) Nigeria, Spain, Greece
These were achieved through pacific means. The cases of dictatorships that became democracies through violence are very few: Portugal, Romania...
Prior history of violent conflict is precisely what led to dictatorships hardening (leftist guerrilla groups in Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, tentative coup in Indonesia, etc.)
Also, violent reaction against dictatorships quite often leads to other dictatorships (e.g.: Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran).
Edit: again, my point is that violent reaction against oppressive regimes is foolish and leads to the opposite of freedom. Violence is the authoritarians' favorite game because it provides them an excuse to do what they do best: brutal repression. You are already loosing when you play their preferred game.