-8

I'm looking at those images and cannot understand how western correspondents (for example), differ "lawful use of force" from "unlawful use of force" (on the last image).

2020, US: q

2020, UK: enter image description here

2020, Belarus: enter image description here

Can you, please, help me to differ "angry mobs" from "fighting for freedom"?

1
2

In a genuine democracy, citizens are supposed to register their opinions at the regular elections, which is the agreed time and place to decide who sets policy. People are free to express their opinion between elections, but it is understood that these opinions are not binding on the legislature and government. Otherwise you would get rule by those who shout the loudest or those who can don't have to go to work, not rule by free and general elections.

When there is no democracy or there ceases to be a democracy, elections are no longer an option and it is a moral right of the citizens to remove their government through protests. Not a legal right, in most countries, but when the protesters win that issue is resolved by the new government/legislature.

So the difference is the state of democracy and freedom in the country. If it exists, then the protesters are trying to overrule the democratic elections. If it does not exist, they may represent the will of the people.

2
  • 1
    Very well. So, democracy justifies violent measures for protecting it. I'll prepare next question.) Jul 26 at 6:03
  • @user2501323, democracy can defend itself against undemocratic assaults, like a few hundred (or even a few thousand) citizens throwing rocks and firebombs because they dislike the majority decision. Just as citizens can defend themselves against undemocratic government by necessary and proportional means (all the way to a violent revolution). The question is always, are the rock-throwers fighting for or against democracy and human rights?
    – o.m.
    Jul 26 at 15:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .