chirot2_michael norciaSygma via Getty Images_iranrevolutionprotest

改革还是革命

Feb 20, 2020 Daniel Chirot

西雅图—最著名的现代革命，无不先有不断的极化和无力解决社会和经济的紧迫问题。日益加剧的敌意和不信任助长了示威，最终演变为暴力。极端主义的兴起是因为温和派被迫与极左翼或极右翼结盟。试图与另一端的温和派妥协的人，会被中伤和排斥。这便是当今世界大部正在发生的事情，包括美国。美国不会发生又一场革命，但随着政治核心的崩溃，可能正在接近革命。

最显著的历史案例说明了过去过什么。1789年法国大革命一开始是受自由主义启蒙思想的指引。但国王和贵族拒绝让渡特权。外国势力也在干预大革命，拉斐特（Lafayette，美国独立战争英雄，希望建立君主立宪制）等温和派领袖逐渐被左派妖魔化为保皇主义的爪牙，被右派说成是革命的叛徒。这正中雅各宾派下怀，他们开启了恐怖主义，煽动了一场残酷内战，成千上万人被夺走了生命。

在1917年俄国革命中，一开始，以亚历山大·克伦斯基（Alexander Kerensky）为首的偏自由派的温和社会主义者掌权。他们错误地没有让俄国退出第一次世界大战，而在面临右翼将军们试图恢复君主制的挑战时，他们噤若寒蝉，给列宁的布尔什维克派分发武器，后者借此控制了局面。在如此极化的情况下，温和社会主义者仍与布尔什维克结盟，直到他们发现自己也成了斩草除根的目标，悔之晚矣。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 5 in all 5 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen Feb 21, 2020

Daniel Chirot explains why many icnonic revolutions in modern times ended in bloody tragedies and failures. According to historians, problems that prompt and incubate violence are a complex intertwined set of social and political forces. And solutions do not lend themselves to just a “checklist” of quick fixes but require intensive, long-term reforms that address these fundamental interconnected social problems and political drivers.
It is crucial to understand the root causes of violent extremism and know how to handle the unintended consequences of revolutionary change, learning the important lessons they hold for today’s liberal democracises that are grappling with new forms of extremism – radicalism.
The author says revolutions had “invariably been preceded by increasing polarization and an inability to solve pressing social and economic problems.” The most consistent drivers of violent extremism include perceptions of marginalisation, discrimination and injustice, exposure to violence, and the absence of formal channels to redress grievances and hold the perpetrators of injustice and abuse accountable.
In a world where political extremism is on the rise and rational reform based on moderation and compromise often seems impossible to achieve, history shows that “growing hostility and mistrust fuel protest, eventually leading to violence. Extremism increases because moderates find themselves forced to ally themselves with those farther to the left or right. Those who try to find compromises with moderate forces on the other side wind up being vilified and excluded. That is happening today in much of the world, including the United States. The US is not about to have another revolution, but it may be creeping closer as the political center collapses.”
Based on some best-known revolutions in history – from the French Revolution of the eighteenth century to the Mexican, Russian, German, Chinese, anticolonial, and Iranian revolutions of the twentieth, the author finds that liberals did not stand a chance of success. Their moderate solutions to serious social, economic, and political problems were overwhelmed by impatience, zealous fervour and radical ideologies that promised simpler, drastic remedies.
In 1789 the French Revolution, first guided by liberal Enlightenment ideals gave way to a “reign of terror and provoked a brutal civil war that killed hundreds of thousands.” In 1917 the Russian Revolution was led by “moderate” socialists, but they were later ousted by the Bolsheviks. In the 1979 Iranian Revolution Islamists overthrew the Shah despite his liberal prime minister, whose “compromises” came too late. Under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the regime “unleashed a wave of bloody repression.”
Nevertheless not all revolutions had this outcome. The American Revolution did not, although its failure to resolve the problem of slavery eventually led to the Civil War. The collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe was relatively peaceful, except in Yugoslavia, whose breakup led to a bitter civil war. However violent extremism, corruption, and the betrayal of ideals prevailed in many crucial cases, while it did not in some others.
The author says, “a unifying thread of such situations is that societies become politically so divided only after a long period in which it is increasingly clear that reforms are necessary, but those in power, oblivious to how dire the situation has become, block the measures that could save the regime.” This opens the door to radicalism, when people feel their legitimate demands for a long overdue change are ignored. Underestimating the vagaries of a revolution, they resort to violence, while also opening the Pandora box.
It is true that “there is no stable alternative to sustaining the center, even when doing so requires overcoming elite resistance to reforms.” But it does not hurt to shake things up once in a while in order to move forward.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Feb 21, 2020

Polarization is increasing, but is it worse than during Vietnam? Or even during the height of the Reagan administration? Not so sure. What is polarized is the press, as the only way to drive revenue is to launch a wholesale polemic over every singe little thing.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Feb 20, 2020

Revolutions only happen when the police and the army don't obey orders and, if necessary, kill revolutionaries. Political division is wholly irrelevant. Consider the last time the UK declared a State of Emergency- 1974. Ted Heath's Government could not be sure the Army and the Police would take action against the miners. In any case, as their leader said, bayonets can't dig out coal. The head of the Civil Service went completely mad. He rolled around naked on the floor of 10 Downing St. babbling about the Red Menace. Ten years later Mrs. Thatcher crushed the miners. Oddly, the country was more divided at that time than under Heath who was backed by all the newspapers, except the Mirror, and many in the Labour party.

Revolutions can succeed because of geopolitical changes but further changes can cause those same Revolutions to collapse. Extreme stupidity can cause any regime to collapse. Between Carter and the Shah, there was cretinism enough to ensure that Iran would turn from America's best ally to its worst enemy in the region. Reform does not matter. Making sure the soldiers and policemen have a strong incentive to shoot people suffices to ensure the survival of the regime. Making things horrible for ordinary people is one way of doing this. Look at Venezuela. Myanmar and North Korea and Cuba showed the way. Dr. Assad has learned this lesson of history the hard way. Egypt is a different case in that the Army isn't sociopathic. Indeed, many thought they could have worked well with the Brotherhood. Still, the lesson here is as clear as daylight. Shooting people matters. Reform does not. Political differences disappear if people don't have enough to eat and those with a little money are running away to nicer countries.

The US is less politically divided now then ever before. Race is not an issue. Gender does not matter. Trump has prevented the Republican Party from turning into a bunch of crazy Bible Bashers. The 'alt-right' has disappeared because the bogeyman of Political Correctness has disappeared. The Democrats may finally find a Trump like vulgarian to lead them. Their circular firing squad will dissolve once they get a bullet proof leader who bullies and ridicules their crazy snowflakes. Even if the Democrats continue to implode at the National level, Trump is available for another 4 years.

This is not to say that the erudite author is wrong to mention Hitler's rise to power. There are uncanny resemblances between that period and what is currently happening in Canada and Sweden- not to mention the Girl Guides and the reboot of the Teletubbies franchise. However, Prof. Chirot is wrong about America and India. Both countries have turned a corner and, no matter who comes to power at the next election, both will pursue their sovereign national interest in a manner which raises the life-chances of citizens but which may make things harder for trade competitors or low-wage economic migrants.

Our author believes that 'The continuing division about the persistent legacy of race-based slavery is a principal, though certainly not the only, cause of growing political polarization today.' This is extraordinarily ignorant. African Americans don't want migration. They hold no brief for China. They vote in a highly rational manner. But their vote share is slipping.

Our Professor says 'So, if the past counsels anything about the present and future for much of the world (certainly including the US), it is that there is no stable alternative to sustaining the center, even when doing so requires overcoming elite resistance to reforms.' Sadly, he has not given a single instance of a Revolution in a modern Liberal Democracy under the Rule of Law. Thus the past does not counsel anything at all.
The whole point about Democracy is that it should not be stable. It is never the case that the median voter has a stable preference profile. There is a circulation of elites and different Paretian 'residues' and 'derivatives' have salience at different times. Like any other Social Choice mechanism, Democracy is about exploring the fitness landscape. There is always an alternative. If there is a concurrency deadlock regarding one matter, it does not mean that stasis obtains. There is always something else the country can be getting on with.
Vested interests resist reforms of a certain sort- those that endanger rents. But there are mechanisms for making such interest groups less cohesive so in-group rent dissipation obtains. The next step is to exploit an information asymmetry so that capitalized rents are transferred into more entrepreneurial sectors. Landlords gave up their power over their peasants when they could accumulate financial assets faster in industry and commerce. Organized labor could be split along generational lines. Generous transfer payments based on reported disability or make-work schemes of various sorts featherbed the 'Poujadist' class.
The thing has happened before. Mutatis mutandis, will it happen again? Sure. That's how machine politics works. Professors may not always be able to see the wood for the trees, given the shrillness and stupidity of campus 'safe spaces'- but that scarcely matters in the larger scheme of things.
- Michael Public Feb 21, 2020
  
  Insurgents can easily architect police/army brutality. Never assume they are just naive idealists who cannot think strategically.
  - vivek iyer Feb 21, 2020
    
    Insurgents find it difficult to 'architect' things once they have been shot in the head. Incentivizing para-militaries to do this is not rocket science. Look at Indonesia's very successful repression of Leftists in 1965. Not that genocide is required if enough money is available to change the incentive structure for affected populations. Irma Adelman, in Vietnam, suggested that Landlords, who were hiding in the Cities, be paid compensation for land which would be transferred to the peasants. For a relatively small amount of money, the peasants would lose their incentive to harbor insurgents. The guerilla would be a fish swimming in poisoned waters. Nobody wants Commies around if they themselves own land and if enough insurgents end up being beaten to death by those they claim to protect, then they get demoralized and decide that maybe the true Revolution that is needful is a spiritual one best achieved by smoking a lot of dope.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/IrmnZSozh

Cookies and Privacy

改革还是革命

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

改革还是革命

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification