If social stability goes pear-shaped, you have a choice between anarchy and dictatorship. Most people will opt for more security, even if they have to give up some personal freedom.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's almost impossible to have security at the expense of insecurity of others. It's almost impossible to have prosperity when there is a huge problem of poverty and backwardness all over the world.
In my view, stability only comes with a government that is elected by the people and works for the people.
If you don't create a sense of order and stability, if people do not feel secure, then progressive politics is dead. That is a fact of history. The right has always emerged supreme when destabilisation and insecurity prevail.
The stability and security of authoritarian regimes cannot create but terrorism and violence and destruction. Let us accept the choice of the people. Let us not pick and choose who we would like to rule their future.
There are a lot of benefits representative of government and it is far better than any type of dictatorial system and it is far better than a one-man rule situation.
It is often in the name of cultural integrity as well as social stability and national security that democratic reforms based on human rights are resisted by authoritarian governments.
Your economic and social development is linked to the kind of regime you have.
A fitting external security environment could also play an important role in promoting social consensus and institutionalization towards democratization.
The roots of the word 'anarchy' are 'an archos,' 'no leaders,' which is not really about the kind of chaos that most people imagine when the word 'anarchy' is mentioned. I think that anarchy is, to the contrary, about taking personal responsibility for yourself.
Without better economic opportunity, you can't have better public security and vice versa.
No opposing quotes found.