Original:
World Leaders Organizations Condemn Coup Against Evo Morales in Bolivia
'a coup, is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means'
Wiki
I have argued before against 'democracy'. I have done so because democracy involves the transference of power from ordinary people to their elected representatives. With this transfer goes the perceived 'Right' of the politicians to direct their followers (many of whom are armed) to enforce the opinions of the voters on the remainder of the population. What is deemed 'representative' is not at all. It is the tyranny of the Mob. It works because it allows the Voter to delude himself that he is somehow an important part of the political process, even when the tyranny is visited upon him, for e.g. when he pays tribune in the form of taxation for 'services' he will never use. As well as the idea that somehow, in this way, he has acquired a 'Right' that he can transfer to the politicians that he otherwise wouldn't have (e.g. to plunder his neighbor according to his beliefs).
This is a process that has taken place in most countries around the World with many less than satisfactory outcomes
It is a flawed system and idea. It is, however, preferable to those systems that preceded it and some that still persist in many parts of the World today. It is preferable to the raw, unmitigated tyranny of the gun, that is wielded by an even more unrepresentative group of Statists. Would I critique Morales on his Statist credentials? Of course. Is an elitist coup the answer? Of course not. Swapping out one set of self-righteous, power grabbing politicians with another isn't progress.
(From Mubarak to SCAF)
The issue of election rigging (e.g. in Bolivia) is a problem of democracy. No elections, no election rigging problem. Use your own wallet to consistently support/not support those things you agree/disagree with. If you are poor you are motivated to understand the World more fully and become more politically active so that you can persuade and combine with others to make your economic power more significant. Avoid supporting Statists at every turn. No money, no Statist. Naive? Then please suggest a 'solution' that doesn't involve making decisions on behalf of others 'for their own benefit'.
Unlike Statists such as Jeremy Corbyn, you are not obligated to take sides in, yet another, false dichotomy (choice). I suggest choosing 'None of the above' and considering ways to then avoid the inevitable Statist backlash. Every Statist hates a 'non-believer'.
Anwar al-Awlaki
To clarify, I'm not a Muslim. Initiating physical violence against the 'non-believer', whatever one's political/religious philosophy, is the Statist way - a coup d'etat won't change that.