Pearl S. Buck Quotes

It is much easier to pull down a government, in such a conjuncture of affairs as we have seen, than to build up, at such a season as the present.

Establishing a stable democracy is a two stage process. First you get rid of the old regime, then you build a durable democratic replacement. Because the first stage is dramatic, many people think the game is over when the dictator is gone. But the second stage is more difficult. There are many examples of broad coalitions coming together to oust dictators but relatively few of them stayed together and agreed on what a new regime should look like.

In Arab countries where rebellion has succeeded in ousting leaders (or will), painful makeovers lie ahead. None will get through the change quickly. Most will stumble over daunting political and economic challenges. Some may fail. All will grapple to find the right blend of freedom and faith.

Authority has to exist before it can be limited, and it is authority that is in scarce supply in those modernizing countries where government is at the mercy of alienated intellectuals, rambunctious colonels, and rioting students.

To take over a government through military force would create instability, and it would not last for long. I do not want to leave a legacy of having taken over the government through military means. It has never occurred to me to have a coup d'etat.

The regime which is destroyed by a revolution is almost always an improvement on its immediate predecessor, and experience teaches that the most critical moment for bad governments is the one which witnesses their first steps toward reform.

Yet, here we are, long and difficult years into that conflict," ... "we still have not created the state we promised them. On the contrary, our costly and valiant efforts have produced an outcome our government did not predict or intend-a failed state spinning out of control into anarchy and civil war.

It is not our place to decide who should lead the Iraqi people. If Saddam [Hussein] leaves or has to be forced out of power and a new regime brought in, a new leadership brought in, I am confident it will be some combination of people inside the country and outside the country.

When this government [Chiang Kaishek's] finally fell there was no one ready to teach the Chinese the human way of life.

Coups usually follow national humiliation.

The transition from authoritarianism to democracy is not as easy as it appears in position papers – it is a rambunctious affair.

It is overly optimistic to think that we can take a country that has emerged from under a totalitarian regime with its institutions of civil society and create a beacon of democracy within five years. If we try to transform Iraq into a democracy, we will need more and more troops over time because we will have to quell nationalistic revolts.

It is doubtful that President Mubarak or the Saudi Royal family will allow elections that might sweep them from office.

The speed with which armies collapse, bureaucracies abdicate, and social structures dissolve once the autocrat is removed frequently surprises American Policy makers.

Revolutions begin with enthusiasm but often end in tears.

One cannot pretend that the sending of a dozen men to a country will lead to a revolution.

As one of the most potent factors to prevent a nation from recognizing a new government is the fear of offending, or the desire to help, the old government, prolonged delay of recognition of the Chinese Republic may mean that the Powers hope, or fear, that the dissolved Manchu Dynasty, with all its corruption, will reappear. But we must see that there is no more dynasty left. Even the Prince Regent and the Dowager Empress have forsaken it. The Emperor himself has retired into private life with satisfaction. In short, the monarchy is dead -absolutely dead.

Revolutions of state, many times, make way for new institutions and forms; and often determine in either setting up some tyranny at home, or bringing in some conquest from abroad.

Stable liberal democracy requires more than just a shift in political forms; it also involves eliminating the antidemocratic social, cultural, and economic legacies of the old regime. Such a process takes lots of time and effort, over multiple tries. Historically, most initial transitions have been the beginning of a democratization process, not the end of it—something that the tortured histories of today’s mature liberal democracies make clear.

Because authoritarian regimes lack popular legitimacy, they often manipulate and deepen communal cleavages in order to divide potential opponents and generate support among favored groups. So when democratization occurs, the pent up distrust and animosity often explode.

All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State

Rebellions which overthrow the governments of Mexico cannot be called revolutions. A revolution is a radical change, and if there is anything that has never been changed in Mexico it is the method of putting new public functionaries into office by rebellion.

In all our history, there is no change of government peacefully.

I don't think it's hypothetical whether or not it's a good idea to topple secular dictators in the Middle East and hope to get a good outcome and hope that stability comes thereafter.

Although combat operations unseated the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime, a poor understanding of the recent histories of the Afghan and Iraqi peoples undermined efforts to consolidate early battlefield gains into lasting security.