February 24, 2011

  • Governments and Revolution

    With the unprecedented amount of unrest and, for all intents and purposes, revolution in the middle east/north africa, it brings to mind again the notion of stability.  I think children, as they grow up, learn notions about how fixed and stable their world is.  When one is young, every year passes like no other - presidents seem to be nearly eternal and unchanging.  I recall growing up with the USSR as the dominant rival for world-power.  That notion was fixed and stable until the fall of the Berliner Mauer, and the rapid changes that followed Glasnost.  A quick tour through the last century quickly shows how mutable governments and nations really can be.  Russia has had effectively 2 maybe three major government changes in this century, China transitioned from Imperial to KMT to Communist - and it's debatable how whether the communist in name government should be considered a seamless transition from the days of Mao, or whether the maneouverings of Deng Xiaoping and later Hu Jintao can be construed as new governments.

    Germany went from an Imperial Prussians to the Weimar Republic followed by the Third Reich (Dritte Reich), then the twin Bundes Republik Deutschland and Deutche Demokratische Republik (DDR), followed by the reunification and reintegration of Germany.

    Nation by nation, we could explore the world, and find time and again that revolution is more common and more frequent than one might expect based on limited personal experiences.  The US Civil War could have easily brought forth a number of new nations, rather than the integrated, United States that now exists.  A Texan secession is always a possibility, even today.

    So, why do people revolt? 

    Why do some repressive governments putter along, while others fall?  Why do some nations, even with strong economies, nearly come undone, such as the US Civil war?  Why are so many nations revolting at the same time?

    The concept of a social contract is an interesting one, and I think encapsulates the trigger for revolt, with a couple modifiers.

    The trigger is when enough of the population believes that they would be better off with war and possible loss of life than to remain under the current governing regime. 

    The equation for this calculation is of course impossibly hard to model, but I would say that the primary drivers are: 1) food/life essentials, 2) freedom to prosper/work, 3) Religion/Philosophy/justice.  If enough people believe that the current governance renders them unhappy in the above areas, in order of decreasing importance, the likelihood of rebellion increases.

    Because this is essentially a perception issue; relative wealth/happiness being a major driver - it's important to note that the way information is conveyed, shared and distributed is of paramount importance.  If the populace perceives and believes that the elites are repressing them, revolution is that much closer.  On the other, hand, if the people believe that there is "enlightened autocracy" that works for the good of a population, they are much more likely going to be willing to tolerate loss of freedoms, etc.  Propaganda from neighbouring states and rival ideologies fit into this category, as modifiers of perception.

    I think people innately have a sense of justice, and desire a sense of self-determination and control.  Without needing a formal articulation of a social contract, people know when their rulers are failing them, they need to remove the government. 

    It is in this area that the modifiers have their effect:  1) The population can be distracted, by entertainment and handouts, etc, to convince them that life isn't that bad.  2) Do they see examples of better governments?  3) Is the government that they have reforming?  4) In systems where regime change is scheduled (Democracies with regular elections) there can be the sense that change is right around the corner...  whether or not it actually is. 5) What are the alternatives - are there leaders available if the government is overthrown?

    Charismatic leaders can modify the perception of all of the above, moving the masses towards or away from revolt/rebellion/revolution.  But what they do is give voice, or sway the prevailing emotional winds that are at play within a population, in my opinion.  In a very well run government, that tries to take earnest care of the population, I think inciting revolution is hard.  But not impossible.

    Look at Adam and Eve.  One could argue that they were under perfect government, but someone came and modified their perceptions...

    Perhaps we are predisposed to rebel...