If you were writing about political events and had just gone through a period of turmoil and revolution, would you have written in favor of anarchy or in favor of order?
There are no advantages to anarchy. While important changes in history have come subsequent to revolution or war, after so much conflict, it seems to be in the nature of people to desire peace. In the aftermath of both of its world wars, America relished the return to the safety of prosperity and peace. It is ironic that many criticize the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower because "nothing much happened."
I would think that most people would want to experience order after a period of turmoil. I think it is natural for most of us to want things to be orderly and to have a pretty good idea of what to expect in all situations.
Personally, I think that I would write in favor of order in such a situation. But that is, of course, a personal opinion.
My thinking here is that people tend to want things to be "normal." There is supposedly an ancient curse (sometimes said to be Chinese) that goes "may you live in interesting times." The idea behind it is that "interesting" brings with it dangers and hardships. It's better to live in a boring and safe time.
I think that I would especially feel this way if I had just lived through a time of chaos. In that event, I would really want stability.
I think that you can see this tendency in two eras of US history -- the 1920s and the 1950s. In both of these cases, people seemed to want a return to normal times after having been through hardships.