People ask that why do Sunnis prefer tyranny rather than trying to quickly change the top of the polity to a religiously better situation, even if some violence is involved?
Considering this is not always the true Sunni position and the rulings may change from case to case, yet one general partial answer is: We see that in the first case [of tyranny] some people lose rights and there is erosion of laws, true.
But in the second case, everyone loses rights and all laws are thrown out and this may happen on a gross unimaginably terrible scale, people cannot even cross the street to work, pray, buy food, etc., for fear of dying. This is not mere rhetoric, this has been seen throughout history in the lands of the Muslims.
This is because the tyrant will (obviously) usually not give up on his power easily, or through persuasion, or negotiations, etc. Unless the force to make the situation change for the better is so overwhelming and so quick that a greater loss is averted, one can foresee a catastrophic situation descending on the land and for the Muslims, not only in their persons, but even for their Iman (belief).
Also of note is that many attempts to change tyranny are not Islamically-based to begin with but may be due to egoistic reasons, or based on competing yet non-Islamic principles, or narrow sectarian visions of what “Islam” ought to be, so the end result of the “end of tyranny” even if it comes to pass may perhaps be worse for normative, orthodox Muslims. All told then, it is difficult for the Sunni ‘Ulama to make a blanket statement to the effect that violent revolutions/overthrows are the proper way to improve the physical (and crucially) the belief of the Muslim Ummah whenever a tyrannical situation presents itself.
(Of course, there might be counter-arguments against this, but this is one opinion, and it is being shown as it was presented with some additional commentary).