Westerners will hail this and an achievement of democracy while ignoring the fact that it took 1000s of people breaking the laws of their system to achieve this kind of shift. Palestine action was not engaged in a form of “legal democratic protest” or what have you. They were, by definition of the state, performing illegal activity. Yet it took these illegal actions as well as countless hours of resistance to the UK’s brutal crackdown to slightly push things in favor of what likely the majority of the UK are in favor of.

If your system’s legal system constantly requires illegal action to have any kind if change, how exactly can you call it democratic? The system of western liberal regimes require subversive action to achieve popular demand, inherently disqualifying it from the description of democratic, at least if you’re a rational person.

This contradiction always baffles me as to why liberal institutionalists can’t see it. The state, in this scenario and during other popular mobilizations, is not acting as promoter of popular policy, but is designed as a roadblock against those demands. Yet, somehow, this is an exemplary part of their “democracy”. To stall and ensure popular demands have trouble emerging, is somehow democratic.

Yet a system that doesn’t go through the same processes as liberal regimes, and provides a consistent development of mass favored policies, is authoritarian.

In reality, the mechanisms of western liberal democracy, are actually a weapon of autocracy, which is why true popular revolutionary processes do not use them.