The rule of law at the most popular times to order (2) Focus (130) Legal person traveled Biography

From Dictatorship to Democracy: bill of rights the risk of the second bill of rights chapter of negotiations in recent years, parts of the Middle East dictators because the massive protests to step down, there are many governments were forced to reshuffle; many believe that the cause of the revolution from the book - " From Dictatorship to Democracy. " Author Jean Sharp (Gene Sharp, 1928 -), is regarded bill of rights as the world's Jasmine Revolution "theory pushing hands", he is also a philosophy, political science, sociology scholars, understanding of power and non-violent movement is opacity. Newspaper works specifically for the affected column in the world, will be serialized in a way to introduce this non-violent bill of rights struggle bill of rights manual. (* "From Dictatorship to Democracy," originally published in 1993 in Bangkok by the Joint Committee to restore democracy in Burma and "New Age" magazine (The New Era Journal). Since then, the book has been translated into at least eight characters in Serbia Indonesia, Thailand and other countries in the publication.) faced the previous period, serious difficulties confrontation with authoritarian regimes (Chapter I) was explored, and some people may retreat to a negative yield. Others do not see the prospects for democracy, may conclude that they must accept a permanent dictatorship seems to be the reality, and hope that through "reconciliation", "compromise" and "negotiation", bill of rights might be able to restore a Some positive things and end the atrocities. Surface, in the absence of selection reality, this idea has a certain appeal. With serious struggle against dictatorship is not a pleasant thing. Why do we need to go this route? Do we not speak rationally, think of ways to talk, to negotiate the phasing out a way to dictatorship? Do not resort to general human democrats dictator, little by little, to persuade them to reduce bill of rights their control, and may eventually give way to the establishment of a fully democratic society? Sometimes there is such a proposition: bill of rights Truth on this side are not all in the party. Maybe the democrats have misunderstood the dictators, the latter may be out of good motives in difficult conditions to take action? Some people might think, if given some encouragement and incentives dictator'll be glad to withdraw from the difficulties facing the country. bill of rights May maintain that: you can propose a "win-win" solution to the dictator, so that each side gets a little. There may also be advocates bill of rights say: as long as the democratic opposition is willing to negotiate bill of rights (could even be another government help in some experienced people), a peaceful solution to the conflict, bill of rights it is possible to continue the struggle to avoid the risks and pain. This is better than hard struggle (even the non-violent struggle, not war) come okay? Advantages and limitations of negotiation talks is a useful tool for resolving conflicts in certain disputes, should not be ignored or denied the right to negotiate. In some cases, when there is no fundamental dispute, bill of rights which can accept a compromise during negotiations can be an important means to resolve conflicts. Strike to fight for higher wages and conducted negotiations to play an appropriate role in conflict resolution a good example: the settlement negotiations could provide a wage increase bill of rights in the amount between the original parties to the dispute bill of rights between the proposed figures. Labor unions legal conflict is one thing, related to a brutal dictatorship continues to exist, or to establish a conflict bill of rights of political freedom is another matter. When the problem involves a fundamental way, affecting religious principles, the future development of human freedom or society as a whole, bill of rights can not provide the negotiations to reach a mutually satisfactory answers. For some basic questions, there should be no compromise. Only by changing power relations in favor of democracy, in order to adequately defend those fundamental issues of controversy. This change only through struggle, not negotiations, can be achieved. This is not to say that absolutely bill of rights should not be through negotiation, but rather to point out that if there is no strong democratic opposition, methods rely on negotiations to get rid of a strong dictatorship is unrealistic. Of course, the negotiations may not work. Entrenched dictator felt entrenched, will likely bill of rights refuse to negotiate with the democratic opposition. Even possible after the start of negotiations, negotiators Democratic Party will go missing, never missing. Negotiated surrender? Against the dictator in favor of negotiating individual and group tend to have a good motivation. Especially with long years of brutal military dictators were unable to achieve the final victory of the struggle, of all people, regardless of how political opinion, will look forward to peace, which is understandable. When the military dictator has obvious advantages, the democrats in this regard has been the destruction and casualties reached intolerable, especially in this case there is internal democracy may make negotiations. This time there will be a strong motivation to explore other ways to recover some of the goals of the democratic camp, while ending the vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence. Dictatorship proposed negotiations with the democratic opposition and the proposal to give "peace", of course, bill of rights is quite cunning. Just stop waging war on his own people, the dictator himself will be able to end the violence immediately. They do not need any bargain, you can take the initiative to restore human dignity bill of rights and rights, release bill of rights political prisoners, bill of rights stop the torture, the termination of military operations, withdraw from the government to apologize to the people. When the dictatorship but powerful presence of the resistance forces annoying when the dictator might want under the guise of "peace" to allow the opposition to surrender bill of rights through negotiations. Called for negotiations sounds and moving, but the negotiations room might be hidden terrible mystery. On the other hand, when the opposition is particularly strong, and when the dictatorship bill of rights really feel threatened, dictators may seek negotiations to save as much as possible they want to have control and wealth. In either case, the democrats should not help the dictators achieve their goal. Democrats should be noted in the negotiation process dictator trap deliberately set. When the basic issues involved in political freedom, the dictator called for negotiations may be attempting to induce the democrats to surrender peacefully, but violence has continued to dictatorship. In such conflicts, only at the end of a decisive struggle, the forces of the dictator has essentially been eliminated, when they want to get access to international airport security passes, negotiation is appropriate. Negotiations in power and justice if the judgment sounds too harsh reviews of the negotiations, then maybe the need for certain romanticism associated with the negotiations cold water poured one o'clock, bill of rights remind them to think too clearly how the negotiations are going on. "Negotiation" does not mean that the two sides sit together on an equal basis, resulting in those conversations and resolve conflicts between them. Must remember bill of rights two facts: first, in the negotiations, the decision to negotiate agreements reached in the content, bill of rights not the relative justice of conflicting views and goals. Second, the agreement reached by the content of the negotiations depends on the energy of the parties bill of rights to a large extent. Must consider some of the following problems. If one can not reach an agreement at the negotiating table, the other in the future to achieve its purpose What can I do? After the agreement, if one bad faith, in spite of the agreement and the use of its own power to seize its objectives, the other party can do? In negotiating a settlement is not reached by non-evaluate the issues involved. Although the discussion of the problem may have a lot of non-real bill of rights outcome of the negotiations absolute and relative power position from various opposition groups. Democrats bill of rights in order to ensure their minimum requirements can not be denied, what can be done? In order to maintain control of the dictator, offset democrats, what can we do? In other words, if an agreement is more likely that the parties estimate the energy of both contrast and then calculate how the end of the ongoing struggle, and the results obtained. In addition, attention must also be willing to give the parties to reach agreement what. Successful negotiation contains a compromise, sharing differences; each party wants to get a part of it, and give up part of the target. For extreme dictators, the pro-democracy forces should abandon the dictator does what? Democratic forces should accept what the target dictator it? Are democrats should give dictators (whether a political party or military cabal) in the next government by the Constitution to determine where a permanent role? It is also called democracy? Even assuming that the negotiations bill of rights where everything goes well, still need to ask: final peace is what kind of peace? Will be better or worse than the day the democrats to start or continue the fight? "Accept" the reason for the rule of dictator dictator, may have various motives and objectives: power, status, wealth, bill of rights social transformation, and so on. Remember, if they abandon the dominance of authoritarian, one can not achieve these goals. If the negotiations, it is bound to dictators trying to save their goals. No matter what the dictator made to ensure that the negotiated settlement, the dictator must not forget that in order to get the yield of their democratic opponents, you can make any promises, and no fear to violate these agreements. If the suppression of democracy in order to suspend and stop resisting, they may be very disappointed. Stop resisting seldom brought reduce repression. Once the domestic and international deterrent eliminated, the dictator's brutal violence and repression may be more than ever before. The collapse of the mass protests, often cancel the original control restrictions dictatorship and atrocities counterweight. Tyrant will be able to do whatever they want, life and death I won. Lal Krishna XI Lihalanni (Krishnalal Shridharani) wrote: "Because bill of rights the tyrant has the ability to impose on us, what we are powerless to resist." [1] When conflicts involving fundamental issues, resistance, rather than negotiation, is a necessary condition for change. In almost all cases, you must continue to fight to overthrow the dictator. In most cases, success does not depend on a negotiated bill of rights agreement, but by judicious use of existing and powerful struggle the most appropriate means. Our argument is that the political opposition, bill of rights also known as non-violent struggle bill of rights is the most powerful means of struggle for freedom people have, will explore this in detail below. What kind of peace? bill of rights If dictators and democrats have to discuss peace, it must have a very clear thinking, because there are dangerous. Not every person using the "peace" of the word have the same expectations of peace with freedom and justice. Succumbed to the brutal repression and negative default on millions of people committing atrocities ruthless bill of rights dictator, is not true peace demands. Hitler often called for peace, but the meaning is: succumb to his will. Often just peace in prison or the grave dictator peace. There are other dangers, some well-intentioned negotiators sometimes confuse the purpose of the negotiations bill of rights and the negotiation process itself. In addition, negotiators democrats or mandated to assist in the negotiation of the foreign negotiators, may give the dictator stroke of the pen provides domestic and international legitimacy as they seize state power, human rights violations and atrocities and loss. Without bill of rights that desperately needed legitimacy, the rule of dictator can not go on indefinitely. Advocates of peace should not give them legitimacy. bill of rights As mentioned earlier there is reason for hope, the leader of the resistance movement out of the struggle for democracy may feel desperate and felt compelled to pursue negotiations. However, that feeling of powerlessness can be changed. Dictatorship is not eternal. People living under dictatorships need not always be weak, do not let dictators indefinitely remain strong. Aristotle had pointed out a long time ago, "...... all the most short-lived regime oligarchy and tyranny on a number of the main system. ...... All the tyranny of the majority of all the places are short-lived . "[2] Modern dictatorships are also vulnerable. Their weakness is aggravated, and the powers of a dictator could collapse. (We will discuss in more detail in Chapter 4 of these weaknesses) Modern history shows the vulnerability of authoritarian regimes, but also reveal that they can in a relatively short period of time collapse: in Poland, so that the fall of the Communist dictatorship, has spent a decade Time from 1980 to 1990; while in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, in 1989, took place a few weeks. 1944 in El Salvador and Guatemala, firmly oppose brutal military dictators fight each took about two weeks. Yilang Sha (Shah, king) militarily powerful regime in months was subverted. In 1986, the Philippines Marcos (Marcos) dictatorship to face the people's power, would collapse within weeks: When power becomes apparent when the opposition, bill of rights the U.S. government quickly abandoned President Marcos. August 1991 hardline Soviet coup attempt, he was hindered by the political opposition within a few days. After that, many joined the country have long dominated by its independence in days, weeks or months. Think violence is always fast and effective non-violent means always need to spend a lot of time is clearly not prejudice the establishment. Although the underlying circumstances and social change may take a long time, non-violent opposition to the dictatorship of the actual fighting sometimes occur quite quickly. Lasting between annihilation and surrender the two, negotiations are not the only option. , And examples listed in the first chapter described immediately above, indicating both peace and freedom for the people again, there is another option: "political opposition." * The full text published in the "From Dictatorship to Democracy second chapter," * Next issue: <power come from? > 1.Krishnalal Shridharani, War Without Violence: A Study of Gandhi's Method and Accomplishments, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1939, and reprint New York and London:. Garland publishing, 1972, p.260 2.Aristotle, The Politics, transl by TASinclair, (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England and Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books 1976 [1962]).., bill of rights Book V, Chapter 12, pp.231 and 232 (in translation, Aristotle book, Yan a, Qin Hua Dian translation, "Political Science", Volume 5, Chapter 12, Beijing: Renmin University bill of rights of China Publishing, December 2003, pp. 211-212) - (full text published in the Law Times 125, 102/10/1 edition).
The rule of law at the most popular times to order (2) Focus (130) Legal person traveled Biography (54) Top Recommended (5) Headline bill of rights (118) Editorial (17) Legal English (21) Ancient Classics (23) from dictatorship to democracy (4) Litigation (14) law drip (276) Interviews (48) Litigation Heart (18) column (95) Oolong files (73) legal battle to (1) Litigation close-up bill of rights (

MORE