So you advocate violence to overturn an election?
It's the whole purpose of democracy to make the violent deposing of an unpopular leader unnecessary.
It does this by presenting the leader (and the country) with the fact that a majority of the people want him gone; The idea being that if he doesn't go, they could bring violence to bear successfully, because they outnumber his supporters.
If an election fails to indicate that the people have the numbers to successfully depose their leader, or if the leader ignores that indication and takes (or keeps) power anyway, then democracy has failed, and violence is indeed appropriate.
An election is a threat display. It is an attempt to avoid violence, by showing all parties that a conflict will have a particular outcome, and giving the inevitable losers the opportunity to back down peacefully.
The use of violence to overturn an election wherein the victor was the less popular candidate is perfectly in accord with the fundamental principle of democracy, which has as it's objective the removal of violence as the
sole option for replacing an unpopular leader.
That violence
can be avoided through voting does not imply that it always
will or
must be. Democracy doesn't take violent revolution off the table (only authoritarian oppression of the people can do that, and only for so long). Democracy merely puts a less damaging option on the table, and allows the people to select that option - which is (most, but not necessarily all, of the time) a better way to handle things.
The use of violence to overturn an election is bad, not because it is
immoral, but because (if the election actually reflects the will of the people) it is
futile. Revolutionaries in such a case are outnumbered, and should expect to lose.
Of course, if the revolutionaries outnumber those who support the leader, democracy has failed - a "democracy" that installs an unpopular leader isn't a democracy at all, and deserves no respect nor restraint in its remodelling.
