The notion of democratic elections changing nothing is so obvious, fact-of-life-ish, that I'm actually bewildered every time people are compelled to point it out.
In a world without dynastic monarchies, where kings would derive their powers from God, given to them in a ritual of coronation; without a national identity or other type of unifying political myth, a more universal, secular justification for power is adopted. The election is just a mysterium through which an official "gains" his powers - a justification for him holding power over others, which in and of itself cannot exactly be justified by anything more than the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest.
Like with the animals fighting over the role of the pack leader, the crown still rests on the head of the only one to have enough power to seize it (usually, just a representative of said power).
What makes him legitimate is not a tradition or a divine power, but the perceived will of the people, or rather, an expressed will of majority of the individuals, since modern democracies do not attempt to be nation-states anymore.
With mass media, legal and bureaucratic intricacies, obviously, it is not about the will of the masses, but about who is most able to sway them. A competition, a sports discipline of sorts.
Needless to say, any ethical argument for democracy, or any other coercive hierarchical system, for that matter, is deemed to fail.
It is a seemingly wasteful ritual, with a ton of mythology surrounding it, but, for whatever reason, every such mean of reaching non-violent consensus over who is the biggest fish in the pond is wasteful (and so are the deer's antlers).
Democracy also tends to be "conservative", that is, hard to change, and favor the option that causes less turmoil - the very purpose of it is the reduction of turmoil to minimum.
Which is why I find expectations of change through democratic elections bewildering.>>84
Seems like this third option is just a prelude for the first option.
Obviously, not that one can call Napoleon a fascist, even though the term does seem to mean nothing to many people nowadays.
What I'm hinting at is that bloody revolutions are just bloody births of bloody regimes. Nothing good ever comes out of them; in fact, every one of the genocidal regimes that I can think of originates from a violent revolution.>>88
And here I thought the reason they were vilified was, you know, mass murder