Bloody Revolution!

No!

If our goal is peace, then our path cannot be violence. If we contradict our own principles in establishing our new governments, then we cannot expect to hold to our principles in any other point.

I must admit that I am quite torn on this. Not in America. Here revolution is quite possible at the voting box. But in many places that would never be a possibility. Should we support the violent overthrow of existing tyrannical regimes, even in the case that there is a wonderful benevolent democratic government waiting in the wings? No.

This is my own best-case scenario for the revolution:

• Citizens within a country band together and discuss the new government that they want to build.
• Those people express their commitment to non-violence right up front.
• They publish a plan like this one.
• They conference and plan and vote among themselves.
• They pool their private resources and begin publicizing their plan for a new fair, open, democratic government.
• They design a transition law for the existing government--a law that outlines the time and process for transitioning power from the existing government to the new government.
• In America, that transition law would have to be a constitutional amendment. In other countries it might not have to be an amendment.
• Whatever the form of the law, the citizens government works to get that law on the ballot, or to get themselves on the ballot to let them enact that law.
• None of this should be subversive or hidden.

The reasoning here is clear. If this new government is going to be open, honest, fair, and equal, then everyone must have the opportunity and ability to participate.

If the current government is a despot, like North Korea, then I would still not endorse violence. Only after people within North Korea begin working on forming their own set of laws and preparing to take over non-violently--even hidden--should outsiders begin trying to buy out the existing despot. How many billion dollars would it take to buy out a despot?

I don't live in a despotic nation. I don't have to face that option myself. I thank God for that. But I must admit that since it is not my life nor my future at stake, I have to let those people decide about bloody revolution for themselves. I would strongly urge them that they should try any other possible means, even to the point of risking martyrdom, other than staging a bloody coup. But in the final analysis, that is their decision.

The only eventuality in which I would choose to be a party to violence is in defense of a fair and just democracy that is simply outgunned by its enemies--internal or external. Once the government was in place, and once the people really believed in and had participation in, such a government; I would stake my own life to fight and kill and possibly die to protect them.

My own challenge is to show that fair and just democracy is doable, livable, and desirable enough that even tyrants will be willing to step down to get out of its way.