Absolutely wrong. If no people support a government then who will hold its guns?
The small, well payed and privileged army + secret service + the unwillingless of the people to form an armed insurgency. Open up your tv more often. Maybe you can tell me who supported the banana republics governments of panama and guatemala
The best way to avoid an armed insurgence is to educate the population and to free up channels of communications between and among individuals.
The best way to avoid an armed insurgency is not putting too much power in a single person. It is well known that presidential systems tend to create military coups because that is the only way you can change the supreme leader. Even USA had 4 assassinated presidents and 20 assassination attempts. That is why US is not promoting the presidential system but the european one around the globe.The best way to avoid an armed insurgency is having a democracy.
but rather it should be one of the gov't's highest priorities to establish programs which educate all citizens in a way to enable them to make good decisions.
Why would a government with 1 party system correctly educate people about the other systems of government ? Why would a 2 party presidential system with electoral votes and, as I said, the insanity of 1 round elections
want to educate people above kindergartner level ? Look at the US propaganda, they tell people that a democracy only means having the power to vote. Look at the lovely scenes with little flags and super-excited people in the movies.
Anybody educated about the democratic principles of representation, power share etc. would never support such a system. Because we europeans have nothing to hide - we have 1 hour a week lesson about democracy in 7 and 8th grade where we learn about the democratic principles. So that's why we have such a bad idea about US, UK who do not respect these principles at all. How in the world can a party with 8% votes get 1% representation ??????? We look at that the same way you guys look at north korea.
Romanian voters are not too educated and 45% of our population lives in countryside. The thing is that if you give power to the people, the people - however stupid - will never let it go. Also the people, however uneducated, know that a ballance has to be kept and no party should become too big. They vote other parties if they see that happening.
Still nobody found a resonable explanation to why you have to force people to vote in different compartments of the train with a winner-take-it-all system and 1round voting brain fart ?