Some people say one of the differences between some modern democracies and a dictatorship is that on the latter, you know where your limits of freedom are.
You are not acting on behalf of the government? Guess what: terrorism.
I would also throw the "media" word on your country list. For having a successful terrorist threat, you need control over media and free speech, and laws that allow that control.
My theory re democracies is that you get these harsh reactions from politicians' overarching need to keep the voters happy. (That doesn't apply to those juntas which can to a large degree ignore the populations' opinions, of course.)
I didn't talk about governments need/interest to e.g. increase control of the population's lives. (I don't know if there really is a large interest for that in the countries of the western world; sounds like a conspiracy theory.)
>> I think I miss your point (or you misunderstood)?
>> My theory re democracies is that you get these harsh reactions from
>> politicians' overarching need to keep the voters happy. (That doesn't
>> apply to those juntas which can to a large degree ignore the populations'
>> opinions, of course.)
I understood from your pragmatic comment (correct me if I am wrong) that an influx of fear on countries sensible about terrorist threats could relate to harsh reforms from politicians that want to keep being reelected seeking a reduce on that fear. Simple: reduce fear at all costs -> be elected again.
You listed US, Germany, Italy, Israel, GB, Spain as examples.
>> I didn't talk about governments need/interest to e.g. increase control of
>> the population's lives. (I don't know if there really is a large interest
>> for that in the countries of the western world; sounds like a conspiracy
>> theory.)
Conspiracy theories often refer to foreign terrorist threats. The miscommunication between "enemy" countries often lead to the possibility of false information from both fronts, that lead to red herrings and theories.
I know politics is not a popular topic on HN (and I like that), so I tried and will try to keep it technical.
Taking it from your premise, if you can (and in some countries you could) control the media to perceive change (which leads to not being elected) as a terrorist threat, you could exceed in great lengths what's written on your constitution and law books, as human rights often do not apply to terrorists. If that's so, the difference (and permit me an hyperbole here) between a democracy and a dictatorship stands on the fence, and secondly, you achieve the main objective of being reelected.
I can't talk for most of these countries. But as an spaniard I know a bit about Spain, and the last "developments" on our civil and penal code.
Anyway, it is probably a good thing if conspiracy theories abound when the local government overstep boundaries -- even if there are no conspiracies, it keeps the politicians' behaviour in control. :-)
You are not acting on behalf of the government? Guess what: terrorism.
I would also throw the "media" word on your country list. For having a successful terrorist threat, you need control over media and free speech, and laws that allow that control.