I recently finished a stint in DC during which I participated in a model NATO simulation. I had a great time in DC, seeing the monuments and riding the metro (yes, it was pretty cool). But I would be lying if I didn't say that I had the most fun working on the NATO simulation itself. I, and six other people, went to DC to work on the North Atlantic Council and five sub-committees. I was on the North Atlantic Council.
Here is what I learned, after a short disclaimer. My simulation conference wasn't totally accurate in the respect that we only had three days and not everybody did a good job simulating their respective countries. For example: Czech Republic, played by Converse College, was one of the loudest and most outspoken delegations when they, in reality, should have accommodated the major players and stayed silent. And the most amusing role-playing mix up of the entire event was the Canadian school that played the United States. Clearly, the professors that were playing home government forgot that Barack Obama was elected, and subsequently sent aircraft to blow up a ship carrying weapons grade uranium. That was a move G.W. would have made, President Obama wouldn't have done that. So, obviousness of a simulation aside...
This organization was built for defense from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact after World War II. With the threat of hordes of Soviet tanks rolling across the German frontier towards France, Western Europe and the USA formed the mutual defense pact known as NATO. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, NATO must redefine itself for the 21st century. I found that in this simulation much of the time was spent trying to redefine NATO in conference instead of looking at problems and trying to do what can be done to remedy them. This was time wasting and irritating to say the least. Conversely, you can argue that NATO must have a new mission in mind to be able to consistently deal with outside dilemmas. I agree with both views, and that creates a logic circle. Don't you love those?
In the end, NATO needs to define itself again. With twenty six member states, NATO has it easy when it comes to building a consensus. Most countries have simmilar views and goals and have seen the same thing. Most of them being on the same continent doesn't hurt either. However, it does take time and some negotiation to make the best of what you have and get that consensus. What comes of that consensus is usually meaningful legislation. But, this doesn't prevent the usual bickering that member states often engage in while playing power politics. It's sad, really. NATO is one of the most useful international organizations in the world.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Levels of Ethnic Violence (from my mid term)
There are four levels of ethnic conflict with their own characteristics and examples. They are Relative Harmony, Uneasy Balance, Enforced Hierarchy, and Systematic Violence. I’ll tackle them in order of severity.
Relative Harmony is the first level of ethnic conflict, if Relative Harmony can be called conflict. It is signified by slight tension and usually occurs in a nation with many ethnic groups. Countries like the United States are extremely tolerant of ethnic differences and allow things such as interracial marriages and religious differences. While ethnic tension isn’t prevalent in the First World, the Third World can’t seem to rid itself of ethnic tension. The one exception is South America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. All of these regions have very good ethnic relations, when you compare them against the average. While not as developed as the first world, because some ethnic groups have not attained the political and social equality, they are in the best shape concerning ethnic relations.
The next step up is the Uneasy Balance. In non-homogenous third world countries, this is embodied by a social group dominating certain sectors of the country, whether it is social, political or economic. In Malaysia, it was characterized by the Muslim majority controlling politics and the Chinese minority being the successful businessmen. This resulted in riots against the Chinese minority and government mandated preference to the Muslim majority when it came to government run institutions such as healthcare and education. In the Caribbean country of Trinidad and Tobago, ethnic tensions exist between the ethnic blacks and Indians. While no violence has erupted or government action taken, these two people have developed negative stereotypes about each other and rarely interact. This takes the form of racially exclusive political parties and political action groups such as unions.
The next step on the ladder is Enforced Hierarchy. This step is the highest step ever achieved by the United States in the form of slavery and oppression following slavery, lasting from 1865 to about 1970. Typically the Enforced Hierarchy consists of one ethnic group dominating political and economic sectors of the country, leaving the other group to be treated as second class citizens. A great example of this in the Third World would be the era of South African apartheid. Only until the 1980s and Nelson Mandela’s election did apartheid end. Other countries still have an Enforced Hierarchy stance. Latin American countries with a significant native population (native meaning the ethnic groups that existed before colonization) have kept that ethnic group down politically and economically. The differences in Latin American countries are defined by culture, not color. If a member of the native population urbanizes and begins to speak the language of the majority, he or she will not be discriminated against. While this has the advantage of giving upward mobility, it is extremely ethno-centric. It forces those wishing to improve their status to abandon their culture and way of life. To me, that is totally unacceptable.
The fourth and final step in this ladder is Systematic Violence. If everything in the end goes to naught, the ethic group in power resorts to genocide or to a lesser extent, mass murder to get rid of a rival group. Great examples of this come from Europe. In Kosovo, the Serbs, led by Slobodan Milosevic started a campaign of violence and death that killed approximately 200,000 people. The genocide was brought to an end by United Nations intervention. Again, in Rwanda, there was resentment against the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority after years of domination. Currently, what if occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan is systematic violence near its pinnacle. What is happening over there is so awful and terrible that most of the world is mobilized to act to stop the violence.
In reflection, most countries do have some semblance of ethnic divisions in their culture, but then again, what country doesn’t? What makes the difference is the level of governmental involvement in these ethnic divisions. Many third world governments have ethnic divides; some of them enforce these divides, while others embody these divides. The worst thing that can happen is systematic violence. In third world countries, if you have an enforced hierarchy, there is a strong possibility that systematic violence might ensue.
Relative Harmony is the first level of ethnic conflict, if Relative Harmony can be called conflict. It is signified by slight tension and usually occurs in a nation with many ethnic groups. Countries like the United States are extremely tolerant of ethnic differences and allow things such as interracial marriages and religious differences. While ethnic tension isn’t prevalent in the First World, the Third World can’t seem to rid itself of ethnic tension. The one exception is South America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. All of these regions have very good ethnic relations, when you compare them against the average. While not as developed as the first world, because some ethnic groups have not attained the political and social equality, they are in the best shape concerning ethnic relations.
The next step up is the Uneasy Balance. In non-homogenous third world countries, this is embodied by a social group dominating certain sectors of the country, whether it is social, political or economic. In Malaysia, it was characterized by the Muslim majority controlling politics and the Chinese minority being the successful businessmen. This resulted in riots against the Chinese minority and government mandated preference to the Muslim majority when it came to government run institutions such as healthcare and education. In the Caribbean country of Trinidad and Tobago, ethnic tensions exist between the ethnic blacks and Indians. While no violence has erupted or government action taken, these two people have developed negative stereotypes about each other and rarely interact. This takes the form of racially exclusive political parties and political action groups such as unions.
The next step on the ladder is Enforced Hierarchy. This step is the highest step ever achieved by the United States in the form of slavery and oppression following slavery, lasting from 1865 to about 1970. Typically the Enforced Hierarchy consists of one ethnic group dominating political and economic sectors of the country, leaving the other group to be treated as second class citizens. A great example of this in the Third World would be the era of South African apartheid. Only until the 1980s and Nelson Mandela’s election did apartheid end. Other countries still have an Enforced Hierarchy stance. Latin American countries with a significant native population (native meaning the ethnic groups that existed before colonization) have kept that ethnic group down politically and economically. The differences in Latin American countries are defined by culture, not color. If a member of the native population urbanizes and begins to speak the language of the majority, he or she will not be discriminated against. While this has the advantage of giving upward mobility, it is extremely ethno-centric. It forces those wishing to improve their status to abandon their culture and way of life. To me, that is totally unacceptable.
The fourth and final step in this ladder is Systematic Violence. If everything in the end goes to naught, the ethic group in power resorts to genocide or to a lesser extent, mass murder to get rid of a rival group. Great examples of this come from Europe. In Kosovo, the Serbs, led by Slobodan Milosevic started a campaign of violence and death that killed approximately 200,000 people. The genocide was brought to an end by United Nations intervention. Again, in Rwanda, there was resentment against the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority after years of domination. Currently, what if occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan is systematic violence near its pinnacle. What is happening over there is so awful and terrible that most of the world is mobilized to act to stop the violence.
In reflection, most countries do have some semblance of ethnic divisions in their culture, but then again, what country doesn’t? What makes the difference is the level of governmental involvement in these ethnic divisions. Many third world governments have ethnic divides; some of them enforce these divides, while others embody these divides. The worst thing that can happen is systematic violence. In third world countries, if you have an enforced hierarchy, there is a strong possibility that systematic violence might ensue.
Military Dictatorships (from my mid term)
I can’t answer this question before first clarifying the two different kinds of military dictatorships. They are the personalistic dictatorships, which are concerned solely with self-enrichment, and institutionalized dictatorships. I’ll start with the failures, and then move on to the successes.
The saying “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” stays true when it comes to combating corruption. In most cases, the military government offers no improvement over its civilian predecessor. Sometimes, the corruption is much more prevalent and apparent. While there are exceptions, the fact is that military governments can’t resist the temptation.
Another pitfall is that the military governments increase the military budget beyond the capacity of the country to reasonably sustain. Usually, it means the cutting back or removal of social programs like education and health care. This is especially prevalent on the continent of Africa. Ethiopia and Eritrea spend 66 and 32 percent of their annual military budget on social programs like health care and education. The trend is that countries with substantial military concerns, i.e. Jordan, Burundi, Iran, North Korea, and Burma, spend more on their military than social programs. The logic is that they wish to maintain control over their country. Overall, in the past 20 years, absolute military spending around the world has been increased by an average of 55%, with South Asia being the leader at 105%. However, it seems to be those countries that have a growing GDP have less or a percentage of that GDP going to the military.
With these increases in military spending, comes the third sin of military governments. They are very protective of their own private interests. Especially in South Asia, corporations have treated former military members/political figures very well. After they leave the military, they receive lucrative private sector employment with preferential treatment concerning government contracts, or comfortable foreign jobs. And with this greed comes the fact that the people in charge will bicker over budgeting or other things that politicians are better suited to handle.
The last sin of the military government is that they are typically oppressive and brutal regimes. Take for instance South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The government of Ngo Dim Diem was Catholic, and did not tolerate deviation from that religion. This resulted in mass protests and the self immolation of a Buddhist abbot in 1963. Also, if you will recall, Pol Pot killed nearly one third of his country while in power.
However, military governments do have upside to them. First off is that they bring stability to the government. While what I mentioned earlier about the military regimes is bad, it does have the advantage off bringing stability to the government. Political unrest defies the military way of thinking, which is strict hierarchy. The government can employ the use of overwhelming force to disperse protests and crush guerilla groups. They also can employ secret police with authorization to use extreme tactics to crush dissent. However, this comes at great cost to human rights and life, as I have mentioned before. The downside to the military government’s stability is that it is typically short lived, as people can take only so much or the government destroys itself. There are exceptions where the government has transitioned to democracy, but the majority of the governments last for less than a decade, and usually are succeeded by a coup.
Military governments are also very good at bringing a nation up to speed when it comes to economic development. Military governments are keen on building infrastructure and modernizing a nation’s economy. There are instances that support this, like South Korea’s modernization. Indeed, Asian nations tend to display the positive side of this debate. The flip-side is that most Latin American countries displayed a very poor economic record when run by military governments. Chile was maligned by too much deficit spending as was Uruguay.
The saying “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” stays true when it comes to combating corruption. In most cases, the military government offers no improvement over its civilian predecessor. Sometimes, the corruption is much more prevalent and apparent. While there are exceptions, the fact is that military governments can’t resist the temptation.
Another pitfall is that the military governments increase the military budget beyond the capacity of the country to reasonably sustain. Usually, it means the cutting back or removal of social programs like education and health care. This is especially prevalent on the continent of Africa. Ethiopia and Eritrea spend 66 and 32 percent of their annual military budget on social programs like health care and education. The trend is that countries with substantial military concerns, i.e. Jordan, Burundi, Iran, North Korea, and Burma, spend more on their military than social programs. The logic is that they wish to maintain control over their country. Overall, in the past 20 years, absolute military spending around the world has been increased by an average of 55%, with South Asia being the leader at 105%. However, it seems to be those countries that have a growing GDP have less or a percentage of that GDP going to the military.
With these increases in military spending, comes the third sin of military governments. They are very protective of their own private interests. Especially in South Asia, corporations have treated former military members/political figures very well. After they leave the military, they receive lucrative private sector employment with preferential treatment concerning government contracts, or comfortable foreign jobs. And with this greed comes the fact that the people in charge will bicker over budgeting or other things that politicians are better suited to handle.
The last sin of the military government is that they are typically oppressive and brutal regimes. Take for instance South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The government of Ngo Dim Diem was Catholic, and did not tolerate deviation from that religion. This resulted in mass protests and the self immolation of a Buddhist abbot in 1963. Also, if you will recall, Pol Pot killed nearly one third of his country while in power.
However, military governments do have upside to them. First off is that they bring stability to the government. While what I mentioned earlier about the military regimes is bad, it does have the advantage off bringing stability to the government. Political unrest defies the military way of thinking, which is strict hierarchy. The government can employ the use of overwhelming force to disperse protests and crush guerilla groups. They also can employ secret police with authorization to use extreme tactics to crush dissent. However, this comes at great cost to human rights and life, as I have mentioned before. The downside to the military government’s stability is that it is typically short lived, as people can take only so much or the government destroys itself. There are exceptions where the government has transitioned to democracy, but the majority of the governments last for less than a decade, and usually are succeeded by a coup.
Military governments are also very good at bringing a nation up to speed when it comes to economic development. Military governments are keen on building infrastructure and modernizing a nation’s economy. There are instances that support this, like South Korea’s modernization. Indeed, Asian nations tend to display the positive side of this debate. The flip-side is that most Latin American countries displayed a very poor economic record when run by military governments. Chile was maligned by too much deficit spending as was Uruguay.
Causes of Revolutions (from my mid term)
The 20th century has seen more revolutions than any other century since the inception of modern politics. The Third World has been the scene of most of these revolutions in the 20th century. So this begs the question, what leads to the collapse of state power and the rise of a revolution? There are three possible reasons put forth, Inexorable Forces, Regime Decay, and Challenges from Below.
Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto stated that revolutions would spawn out of industrialized nations as a result of class inequality. He saw the bourgeoisie, i.e. capitalists and land owners, as greedy and uncaring for the masses. He envisioned the working proletariat rising up to overthrow the ruling class and redistribute the wealth equally among all citizens of the nation. His visions influenced the likes of Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro. Of those countries, only Cuba maintains its strict communist control over the country. The rest, China, Russia, Vietnam, and Argentina are all embracing capitalism to a larger degree each year. No country had the succession of revolutions that he predicted. Mao changed the Marxist theory to better fit China and succeeded in his revolution. Vietnam and Cuba morphed Marxism into a populist philosophy that worked for their area.
One of the more logical ideas is that of Regime Decay. This occurs when external pressures such as economic collapse (ironic, no?) or war weaken a government so much that the people find it no longer desirable. In the 20th century, this pressure was applied by European nations through economic dominance and military pressures (Cold War). China’s last dynasty was weakened by colonialism. First the nationalists took over, and then the communists acquired control after World War II. Russia’s tsar was overthrown after it got itself entangled into wars and had too much foreign debt. Lenin capitalized on this with his Bolshevik Revolution. And after that revolution, the Cold War excessively weakened the Soviet Union to a point where it collapsed. It has been determined that revolutions start not because of the skill of a revolutionary, but at the ineptitude of the host government. Japanese conquest in World War II of European colonies in Asia didn’t do much to help the case of the mother country, and subsequently, many revolutions happened in Vietnam, Burma and Indonesia. Another thing is that regimes, typically oppressive military ones, become old and so corrupt that the populace can’t stand them any longer. Also, the governments in question could be subservient to a larger regional power like the United States. This had a tendency to happen in Latin America. Also, whenever a country’s economy fails, the lower class has a tendency to blame the government. This also causes revolution in places.
One last reason is pressure from the bottom of the social ladder, Challenges From Below. This happens when the government is unable to sustain its legitimacy by providing services to the populace, and/or there is a strong anti-government movement in the country. It is very necessary for peasants to have a strong political organization that demonstrates integrity. They must establish that they are a viable alternative to the old way of doing things, they must be supported by a majority of the population, and last, they must be too big to be taken care of by the current government. Again, China and Russia are great examples of countries that had an inept government and a popular, successful revolution. But these two countries had different approaches to their revolutions. There was the Western model, which emphasizes the collapse of a government before the revolution, and the Eastern model, which emphasizes the collapse of a government because of the revolution. When western or eastern is said, it refers to specifically the western or eastern hemispheres. An interesting trend has appeared when determining the likelihood of a revolution. In countries where the quality of life is consistently poor the lowest classes have a lower chance of revolt than countries that recently took a downturn. This has a lot to do with people’s expectations on a government. The population usually has a tendency to think that setbacks shouldn’t happen and everything should and will improve all the time. History has dictated that people have unrealistic expectations compared to what actually happens in an economic cycle. A great example of this is the most recent election in the United States. Barak Obama won the popular vote because he appealed to populist rhetoric and promised economic improvement at a time when the economy was hurting many people. In addition to economic trouble, there is also the specter of social unrest due to unfair treatment by the home government.
Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto stated that revolutions would spawn out of industrialized nations as a result of class inequality. He saw the bourgeoisie, i.e. capitalists and land owners, as greedy and uncaring for the masses. He envisioned the working proletariat rising up to overthrow the ruling class and redistribute the wealth equally among all citizens of the nation. His visions influenced the likes of Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro. Of those countries, only Cuba maintains its strict communist control over the country. The rest, China, Russia, Vietnam, and Argentina are all embracing capitalism to a larger degree each year. No country had the succession of revolutions that he predicted. Mao changed the Marxist theory to better fit China and succeeded in his revolution. Vietnam and Cuba morphed Marxism into a populist philosophy that worked for their area.
One of the more logical ideas is that of Regime Decay. This occurs when external pressures such as economic collapse (ironic, no?) or war weaken a government so much that the people find it no longer desirable. In the 20th century, this pressure was applied by European nations through economic dominance and military pressures (Cold War). China’s last dynasty was weakened by colonialism. First the nationalists took over, and then the communists acquired control after World War II. Russia’s tsar was overthrown after it got itself entangled into wars and had too much foreign debt. Lenin capitalized on this with his Bolshevik Revolution. And after that revolution, the Cold War excessively weakened the Soviet Union to a point where it collapsed. It has been determined that revolutions start not because of the skill of a revolutionary, but at the ineptitude of the host government. Japanese conquest in World War II of European colonies in Asia didn’t do much to help the case of the mother country, and subsequently, many revolutions happened in Vietnam, Burma and Indonesia. Another thing is that regimes, typically oppressive military ones, become old and so corrupt that the populace can’t stand them any longer. Also, the governments in question could be subservient to a larger regional power like the United States. This had a tendency to happen in Latin America. Also, whenever a country’s economy fails, the lower class has a tendency to blame the government. This also causes revolution in places.
One last reason is pressure from the bottom of the social ladder, Challenges From Below. This happens when the government is unable to sustain its legitimacy by providing services to the populace, and/or there is a strong anti-government movement in the country. It is very necessary for peasants to have a strong political organization that demonstrates integrity. They must establish that they are a viable alternative to the old way of doing things, they must be supported by a majority of the population, and last, they must be too big to be taken care of by the current government. Again, China and Russia are great examples of countries that had an inept government and a popular, successful revolution. But these two countries had different approaches to their revolutions. There was the Western model, which emphasizes the collapse of a government before the revolution, and the Eastern model, which emphasizes the collapse of a government because of the revolution. When western or eastern is said, it refers to specifically the western or eastern hemispheres. An interesting trend has appeared when determining the likelihood of a revolution. In countries where the quality of life is consistently poor the lowest classes have a lower chance of revolt than countries that recently took a downturn. This has a lot to do with people’s expectations on a government. The population usually has a tendency to think that setbacks shouldn’t happen and everything should and will improve all the time. History has dictated that people have unrealistic expectations compared to what actually happens in an economic cycle. A great example of this is the most recent election in the United States. Barak Obama won the popular vote because he appealed to populist rhetoric and promised economic improvement at a time when the economy was hurting many people. In addition to economic trouble, there is also the specter of social unrest due to unfair treatment by the home government.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Revolutionary Change
Revolutions have been called violent uprisings or dramatic changes in social structure, whether being violent or non violent. I believe revolutions are change in society and were violent in nature and supported by the masses. I do not believe that non-violent movements should be called revolutions. Case in point for me would be what many called the hippie revolution.
Then there is the debate about what causes revolutions. Well, Karl Marx said that revolutions were inevitable due to inexorable historical forces. He believed that the lower classes would revolt against the upper, landowning, capitalist classes, and that theses revolutions would occur in industrialized nations. As it turns out, these revolutions occurred in nations where the country was not industrialized. Lenin started the Soviet Union with his October Revolution, Mao Zedong changed Marx's political views to adapt them better to Chinese society, and Ho Chi Minh turn Marxism into a populist feeling and uprising. Che Guevara mimicked what Ho Chi Minh did in Cuba.
The next reason is Regime Decay. This occurred in Russia when Lenin had his revolution and in China with Mao. This occurred because the government in power had lost its legitimacy because of war, foreign debt or military entanglements. The masses were led by what Handelman calls “marginal elites.” This again occurred in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. These types of revolutions are not brought about by the revolutionaries themselves, but they are brought about by the apparent ineptitude of the current government prompts these people to act. Peasants join revolutions because their way of life has been disrupted in such a way that they feel the need for change and protection that the current government couldn’t provide. Also, government can become so corrupt that the people become sick and tired of it. Cases in point are Nicaragua and Cuba. Along with that, both of these governments were told what to do by the United States. People still like to maintain their sovereignty, so they take back their country. Regime Decay also occurs when the economy takes a bad downturn, the standard of living is in shambles, and the government can’t provide the basic necessities that the populace needs to survive.
To start a revolution, on needs substantial power from the mass populace. These Challenges from Below are peasant uprisings against the government. These peasants must establish a strong political organization that demonstrates integrity. They also must establish that they are a viable alternative to the old way of doing things, they must be supported by a majority of the population, and last, they must be too big to be taken care of by the current government. There are two models for this. There is the Western model, which emphasizes the collapse of a government before the revolution, and the Eastern model, which emphasizes the collapse of a government because of the revolution. When western or eastern is said, it refers to specifically the western or eastern hemispheres. In countries where the quality of life is consistently poor the lowest classes have a lower chance of revolt than countries that recently took a downturn. This has a lot to do with people’s expectations on a government. The population usually has a tendency to think that setbacks shouldn’t happen and everything should and will improve all the time. History has dictated that people have unrealistic expectations compared to what actually happens in an economic cycle.
I have a problem with Marx’s theory of revolution. It simply doesn’t apply to real world situations. This kind of rhetoric flies with Third World countries, but with industrialized nations, people are not too keen on throwing away their HD Televisions and computers because they feel they are being treated unfairly. With the Third World, people have much less to lose, and therefore are willing to gamble their lives and livelihood to get change. The revolutions in the industrialized world have been revolutions away from communism, while Third World countries revolutions have been frequently for communism. This reinforces my opinion that people’s way of life and comfort level determines the likelihood of a revolution.
So what segments of the population support revolutions? Well, there is no required type of population that is required to join the movement if it is to succeed. There are five groups of people in revolutions: the fanatic loyalists to the government, the conditional supporters of the government, those that are neither for or against the revolution, those that support the revolution in non military ways, and those that actually pick up weapons and actively try to overthrow a government. These proportions cannot be quantified or measured is any way, since it isn’t feasible to do a Gallup Poll in a war torn country. What is clear is that the revolution must secure a dedicated, strong base to back it up. No half-hearted attempts have won revolutions. There must be strong anti-government sediments and the will to do something about it. I agree with all of these statements. I also agree with the notion that you need a strong base of support to be successful in these actions, although the number of individuals involved is important. To have a better than nominal chance, one needs, in my opinion, at least 50% of the population going with you.
Why do peasants rebel? Simply put, their lives have been disrupted is such a way that they feel compelled to act in their best interest; getting their life back to normal. This can occur when a neo-feudal system is broken and the peasants have no source of income. They simply want the old times back when they can support their family. Which peasants rebel? Well, the peasants who have their lives disrupted the most by modernization. In Latin America, it was found that guerilla movements were made up of people who couldn’t support themselves because they were facing eviction from the land they worked their whole life. Falling crop prices, well economics in general, also threatens farmers who own their own land and sell their crop to a marketplace. Rising costs of living outpaced the demand for their crop, so they rebelled. It seems to me that revolutions occur whenever the peasantry is dissatisfied with the current state of the government. If I were in a position that was unmaintainable and the government wasn’t doing anything to help me, needless to say I would be pretty angry.
Revolutionary leaders are often made up of educated individuals who can mobilize the populace. However, when revolutionaries get into power, they lack the political skill and will to get things done quickly enough for the populace to be happy. Revolutionaries that are born in the government seemingly have less legitimacy since they are already part of the problem. The rural revolutionary has a more romantic feel to it, and therefore is more likely to gain support.
In reflection, I believe the most successful revolutions have been those of the western model, with rural leaders, and a large and strong popular base, like Latin American revolutions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)