What would be the endgame for Tibetan independence. I can see it going straight to theocracy.
Ancient people were horrible everywhere. It's not really an argument for anything.
These aren't "ancient Tibetans"... this is quite literally the Tibetian government directly prior to the Chinese takeover, ie. within current people's lifetime. There are direct, credible witnesses to what Tibet under the current Dalai Lama's government was like. The current Dalai Lama was picked by people who tortured their citizens and gouged out their eyes for trying to organize away from serfdom. The current Dalai Lama oversaw a feudal system where these sorts of punishments continued to be carried out.
Tashi Tsering's autobiography details the extensive whippings and sexual assault he experienced working in the current Dalai Lama's dance troupe, prior to the Chinese takeover.
This is not "ancient" history.
Tibet was much more closer to SA (rigidly authoritarian, brutal punishments) than Pakistan (democratic election of leaders, less chopping off of people's limbs)
Also, looks like the Tibetan's are suffering exactly the kind of treatment as you wrote under the CCP.
The excuses people make for colonialism remain the same as centuries pass by.
Saudi Arabia funds conservative schools of Islam all over the world , however they have yet to involve themselves in the kind of state sponsored terrorism Pakistan does.
For people outside these countries i would say Saudi is definitely better
Also, I hope you're not saying that the way of the China/CCP is better than how Tibetans were before Chinese invasion. I don't think they were ever ravaged, unless you're referring to the Chinese propaganda to show them as the savior. And, if they were such a savior why are people killing themselves?
Moreover, I'm assuming you're on a similar crusade against the Pope and other theocratic governments, of other religions, in the world.
To be clear I'm not for CCP or any autocracy. I'm against theocracy.
Any form of government once formed is hard to change. How many governments do you see regularly changing from democracy to communism to theocracy to etc... Theocracy is a perfect valid form of governance.
Religion's just like governments have multiple sides to them. Which side the rulers decided to focus on changes which actions are performed.
Imagine if instead of religion it was skin color, or gender, or hell even height - only people over 2 meters could be in government. Can we whitewash those too? Are they as legitimate as Theocracy? Why not?
How about that you can't change it very easily once you have it? Or that it's based on authority, mostly of a small set of people? Or that religious issues have caused the slaughter of millions of people?
Are you really abandoning liberal democracy because you happen to have found a religion you like?
I've not found a religion I like :)
I'd said what's wrong with theocracy if that is what the people want, for example vote for. So, in effect it's a democratically chosen theocracy. Is that not democracy after all?
In other words, if Tibet were to become independent and the people chose Dalai Lama to be the head of the state, would it be a theocracy or a democracy or a theocratic democracy?
But, I get your point.
Still, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves debating future Tibetan government while it is being butchered under the CCP. We safely can punt this debate for later.
Is there some sort of founding document that enshrines the right to vote and replace leaders with a regular cadence, regardless of the desires of that leader? If so, then regardless of who they vote for, it's a democracy.
If instead a person is appointed to lead, who will use their religion to decide state matters, and there is no way to remove them except for them to choose to replace themselves, then it's a theocracy.
"Theocratic democracies" are unstable and don't last. There is no way for them to last. Either it allows those who are not of the same faith as the leaders to influence policy and have their voices heard and becomes a democracy, or it doesn't, in which case it is a theocracy, and a form of autocracy or oligarchy (just, one that claims divine authority instead of purely material authority).
Russia is another one of those countries that had some kind of election in the past but going forward you can't really see them being fair elections.
Of course people are free to elect eg the Christian democrats as often as they like, so long as they can choose otherwise. Japan and Mexico IIRC had people electing the same party for decades.
Using force to ensure conformity can work for the short-term, but history shows even the strongest dictators will fall eventually, if they lose the support of the people.
So, they are asking for the next best option as a compromise - even the proposal is called middle-way for it is a compromise.
There are some Tibetans that don't think true autonomy is possible with the CCP and thus still want independence though.