We concluded the last blog discussion with the consideration of Tilley’s thesis regarding the correlation between modernization and revolutions. Let’s extend the discussion and tilt it a little more towards the dilemma of those “revolutions” and the resulting regimes that emerge on the heels of those revolutions.
Three different ways to ask the question then are:
Do modern revolutions breed single party states?
Can modern revolutions – read 20th century – create democratic regimes?
To what extent do modern revolutions further democratic regimes?
Use the sites listed below to help you in your exploration and give consideration to handouts coming Wednesday in class for a specific consideration of the rise and rule of single party states.
Blog entries for full credit should include at least one original posting and two substantial responses to your peers.
Deadline for full credit contribution is Wednesday, November 4th by 7:20 AM.
Can modern revolutions create democratic regimes? I think they CAN, but so far, they haven't. Referring back to the reading, you realize that the Nicaragua and Iran fiasco was a complete disaster. Since the US (leader of the democratic world = representative of democracy) supported "the noepatrimonial rulers with arms and money, while giving only lip service to the goals of greater human rights, policial freedom, and democratization in the states" had this super hypocritical policy regarding these modern dictatorships, we fostered certain feelings of distrust and animosity not only to the overturned dictator and his supporters, but also to the elites in his circle who overthrew him. Since we swung back and forth in our policies, we were viewed as insincere and untrustworthy -- more reason to reject democratic regimes. Actually, I think it might go further than that; refusing to even instill any democratic values and negotiating/communicating with other democracies. The mistrust spread from one revolution to the others, so this is probably one of the prime reasons why the US is still viewed with suspicion today.
ReplyDeleteI think it's possible for modern revolutions to generate a positive effect on democratic regimes, but the ones thus far don't uphold this. Overturn the status quo!
Do modern revolutions breed single party states?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the reading by Goldstone, yes modern revolutions do breed single party states. Goldstone provides the example of “neopatrimonial” states, which at first glance seem very secure under the rule of a “chief executive” who puts on an elaborate show of democracy, but essentially rules autocratically. The masses are generally politically uneducated, while the chief executive maintains control over an elite group of politically educated bureaucrats. However, these “neopatrimonial” states are highly vulnerable to outside influence. Goldstone provides the example of the United States’ manipulation of Iran and Nicaragua, both examples of neopatrimonial states under the Shah and the Somozas. According to Goldstone:
“While the United States sought to increase the dependence of the chief executive on U.S. aid, it also sought to impose domestic policies that weakened the executive—limits on coercion, greater political expression…meaningful elections, and restrictions on corruption. All of these are desirable steps in the democratization of regimes; however… U.S. policy thus sought inherently contradictory objectives…If [the chief executive] enacted liberalizing reforms, they undermined the basis of their rule; if they did not enact such reforms, they lost the U.S. aid essential to maintaining…their rule.”
At first this seems like it would be an effective way to bring about the democratization of the neopatrimonial regimes. However, as the chief executives, in this case the Shah and the Somoza, were caught between satisfying their ally or maintaining their regime, the opposing “elites” grew more confident, as well as distrustful of the United States and of the chief executives, resulting in revolutions in both Iran and Nicaragua in 1979. Governments hostile to the United States emerged from both. According to the website above, “a regime is autocratic if the civilian head of state has challenged the forces that originally brought him into power -- for example, by purging of the ruling party in a one-party state.” Thus, at least in this case, modern revolution bred single party states. However, it was not much of a change from the previous “neopatrimonial” state. Thus, there was certainly the possibility of a truly democratic government emerging from these modern revolutions. However, when the goal of the masses is to “merely preserve their livelihood, with as little contact with the state authorities as possible,” as Goldstone describes is the case in neopatrimonial states, the possibility of the emergence of a democracy is the very low. The elite classes were free to take complete power as long as they maintained the general public’s “livelihood.”
Well, this is how I read Goldstone's conclusion. Instead of the question "Do modern revolutions breed single party states?" he is suggesting the opposite, that single-party states breed revolution. Goldstone writes: "Thus, the same dictatorships that appeared so strong can quickly become the site of modern revolutions." I take this to mean that the neopatrimonial state, (which has the "chief executive" or dictator) is susceptible to revolution because of its inherent weaknesses. I'm not sure if this makes sense, but that's my original thought.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Amy, I think you have a very valid point here. I would also expand on that to say that because the United States is really the only country of its kind (government-wise), and every other country has been founded on different beliefs, perhaps the other countries have not established democratic regimes because that would spark even more revolution in the country.
Riley,
ReplyDeleteDoesn't it seem like a never-ending cycle then? If modern revolutions breed single-party states which are in turn dependant on foreign aid from some super power (I'm assuming the US isn't the only one here), but then the super power withholds it for some reason (let's say for democracy), then the state should go back into another revolution, producing another neopatrimonial ruler, then beginning that whole rollercoaster again.
But, if then the elite classes took over the general public's "livelihood," wouldn't we have something like pre-French Revolution again, with distinct social classes? Of course, that means then this group of people would have to have another revolution.
When does it end?
After reading Goldstone’s summary and analysis, I am wondering how, and under what circumstances a neopatrimonial state would be able to become a democratic state. From the given examples (mainly Nicaragua and Iran) it is clear that neopatrimonial states are prone to revolution, but the revolutions only bring about new single party systems. It seems, however, that only a simple change of purpose would be needed to create democracies; if the elites wanted to form a democratic state I think they could have. So why didn’t they?
ReplyDeleteIn both Nicaragua and Iran the US played a significant role in deterring the formation of a democracy. By at first supporting the dictator, then creating a revolution, the hypocrisy caused the revolting elites to reject the US. But if the US had gone in to these countries promoting democracy from the get-go would it have been different? It seems that initial super power support was necessary for the weakening of the dictator, but is there a way the US could have accomplished that and still kept the elites as allies? If this is possible, I think that these revolutions would have been far more likely to result in democracies allied with the US, so I think it was possible for 20th century revolutions to create democratic regimes.
Natalie, I agree with your idea that single-party or neopatrimonial states breed revolution, and I think Goldstone proves this point fairly well. Also, what you pointed out about the US being unique, government-wise, is significant. Under the definition of democratic states from the first website, there are a lot of countries now in which the government is elected by the people (or their representatives). A lot of these are European, or greatly influences by European countries in the past (colonization, imperialism, etc.). I think it is important that a lot of Europe has been moving towards democracy for centuries, starting with parliament in England back in the 1600s, and adding legislatures and just generally increasing representation. Perhaps this is important in considering modern revolutions, and the history of the countries in which they take place…?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Amy responding to Riley...
ReplyDeleteI don't know where this cycle ends, and as long as the conditions remain the same, I don't think it will end. Also, along with the US the Soviet Union was a prominent super power which supported the creation of communist states. Does anyone have examples of the Soviet Union going about trying to create revolutions resulting in communism that worked? This might show why certain revolutions did not create democracies when the US stepped in.
I believe it’s important to point out one statement Goldstein makes: “all revolutions have become ‘bureaucratic revolutions’- in the specific sense of creating larger, more centralized, and more autonomous state organizations that existed under the old regimes” Yes, most governments can be said to be centralized to a degree, however aren’t single party states considered to be “highly centralized”? It almost seems ironic in the idea that many of these modern revolutions were instigated on democratic principles but end up creating a single party state structure, and in some cases a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Katie’s post, I believe a general outcome of the modern revolution is the rise and domination of one controlling faction. The Russian Revolution being a prime example of this: one political party, the Bolsheviks, managed to eliminate opposition and ultimately take over the government to be succinct. It only seems logical that once the disputed governing body is removed from power (which at this point the masses and varying political groups are all working toward this one goal) the position for power is open and thus a race starts between these once-united groups.
Natalie, I was actually going to comment on that... because it seems to me like Goldstone is suggesting that single-party states breed revolutions. And this idea kind of connects with Amy and Riley's discussion about the cycle of single-party states and revolutions... because, if our interpretation of Goldstone's text is accurate, then single-party states are naturally weak, and this leads to revolution... revolutions seek change, such as shifts in power and leadership. So can't this just continue as new leadership rises and becomes so "indespensable" that revolution occurs? This is super cliche, but that saying "history repeats itself" kind of suggests a cyclic movement of history...
ReplyDeleteAlso, your comments about the "inherent weakness" made me think about the part in the reading where Goldstone describes how each part society is weakened because it becomes, in a way, dependent on the single-party leader (the chief executive). The general public is "depoliticized" and they only want to preserve their livelihood. The educated elites and the military become loyal on the chief executive... and the loyalty causes the chief executive to seek more power, more loyalty and become "indespensible." I think that the examples like this that Goldstone use demonstrate how the whole society can become weak becuase of a single-party rule. (just look at how the chief executive intentionally keeps the elites divided to help his power grow... that is weakening society, and I think this ultimately leads to revolution.)
I agree with Amy in saying that modern revolutions can breed democracy but thus far in history have failed to do so. I think that this connects greatly to what Gretchen and Natalie have said about single party states breeding revolution- this is a vicious cycle. Autocratic regimes lend way to many weaknesses in government and only selected members of society are capable of participating. Members who are not of the elite become involved solely in keeping their livelihood. Because of the inherent flaws in autocratic rule, it is easy to see why revolutions begin. However, once a leader has been overthrown where does the society turn? After a revolution, a country is often in a state of chaos, without someone leading they cannot progress. It is human nature to fear change and it is much easier for a society to return to a nondemocratic system then completely evolve. Think about it. They have been living a certain way for such a long time that it is extremely difficult for everyone to come together as a democracy. The cycle never ends.
ReplyDeleteDoes this even make sense?
I really like what Natalie said about single party states breeding revolution. It seems very logical to come to this conclusion, based on the evidence observed thus far. The people that lead these revolutions are generally very radical thinkers, and in the end they become the leaders of the single party government. Because the revolutionary rebels are so radical, their radical ways become the reason for the radical communist governments.
ReplyDeleteA democracy is also a very advanced way of thinking, at least in my opinion, because it gives the people an equal say on either end of the spectrum and the government values the ideals of the people. A country needs to be advanced enough to handle such a forward way of thinking before they can truly use a democracy to the benefit of all. Therefore, I disagree with Amy's statement that modern revolutions can create democratic regimes.
In a way, a revolution cannot happen without this step of a centralized government...and the world has yet to achieve a Utopian single party government.
The ‘chief executive’ so to speak seems to be extremely reliant on these elites with competing goals and diverse opinions: “Neopatrimonial states rely on the support of a diverse assemblage of elites, themselves often divided, to maintain authority over a largely depoliticized population”. Goldstone goes on to prove this relationship is very precarious and requires a fine balance with this carrot and stick analogy. When these conflicting demands become too overwhelming to handle, opposition arises from the elites and threatens to topple the chief executive- a weakness in the neopatrimonial state which may lead to a compromise in power between the elites. A revolution of sorts must occur which, as we concluded in class, must have the support of the masses. As Goldstone writes, “if elites overcome their divisions to unite against the executive, and if the loyalty of the army should falter or be pressed by widespread popular mobilization against the regime in urban or rural revolts, revolutions becomes nearly inevitable”. With growing internationalism in the 20th century and the intervention/aid of democratic countries like the US and a now-politicized population through the revolution itself (as the fall of the neopatrimonial state inevitably leads to the loss of control over the depoliticization of the masses), it seems quite possible, almost likely, that a democratic system would be adopted either by force or popular support as transformations of state institutions are “almost certain”.
ReplyDeleteKaylee, I have to challenge your ending interpretations. A revolution (which is a radical change) is partly based off of the masses so wouldn't this politicized population, fueled by elite demands, want a democracy- the opposite of the neopatrimonial state beforehand?
ReplyDeleteAre revolutions occurring, truly? it seems as though in an increasingly global environment, it is impossible to have a true revolution from the people. Even when the US was revolted against, that might not have occurred if not for our intervention. I would almost argue that revolutions now are not revolutions in a traditional sense, as they owe more to world wide politics and inter connectivity than ideals or even the old regime. In this respect, I agree with what Alex has said about Goldsteins comment referring to bureaucratic revolutions. However, I disagree with his comment that democratic states instigating single party take overs is ironic. I think it is demented, twisted, and indicative of our true motive, but I do not think it is ironic. After all, since its creation the US has encouraged those with the ability to take wealth by force to prosper. Why should this essentially capitalistic view point change in the global arena? we can, so we do. This is especially relevant when considering our aims. After all, a single party state is not technically communism, if it is backed by the US and not the USSR. So why not? we don't truly care for these people, just for their allegiance. And, I'm going to have to agree with Kaylee about the state of chaos left in the wake of a revolution. It is indeed a vicious cycle, but it has been exploited by people playing a chess game with nations livelihood. Think about how manipulation can turn people against there leader, lead them to depose him/her, and then be left wondering what to do. how easy, then, for uncle sam to step in. And then, when they strike back in anger and leave more chaos in their wake, it is even easier for radical dictators to assume the reigns of power. To paraphrase George Washington, "stay the hell away from other nations affairs."
ReplyDeleteI am responding to Katie's original thought. I agree that it would require the United States to promote democracy for one to emerge out of the revolution. I think that perhaps the elites didn't want to promote democracy because, as I suggested earlier, the United States' government is so different from any other in the world, that perhaps the elites didn't want to seem like xenophiles or disloyal to their country. It could also be a reverse psychology thing, like the US told a subordinate country to be democratic, they would not implement a democracy for that very reason, and perhaps yet another single-party state would emerge. It's kind of a lose-lose situation here, because the support of the US could potentially result in the perpetuation of a single-party state either way.
ReplyDeleteSo, do modern revolutions breed single party states? I suppose so, but the reason is because in the 20th century, states take a turn towards what is called a “neopatrimonial” state because of the context of the 20th century. What I mean by that is this: in the 20th century, as said by Goldstone, you have many external factors/states that are trying to influence a country. In short, there is globalization present within the structure of the modern revolutions whereas it is not present in previous ones, such as the French Revolution. I believe that this is one of the key component that creates the distinction between our classical revolution and the modern revolution.
ReplyDeleteNow we can relate this back to the Russian Revolution and the effect of globalization/foreign states on a “modern revolution”. The Russian Revolution is interesting because it involves both the classical and modern aspects of revolution. Classic in the whole peasant revolt ideal, and modern in the fact that it was significantly influenced by foreign policy (WWI, Russian Civil War) in the midst of their developing government structure, so we see a marked consolidation of power into a single party (Communist Party), culminating in Stalin.
This can be related to how Goldstone and how he describes modern revolutions, where he emphasizes the significance of the foreign power. With the foreign power, it is hard to escape the single party state because that consolidation of power is needed, and nothing in fundamentally changed from power to power. It requires a more internal push to create a democracy, as we see with the efforts of glasnost and perestroika with Gorbachev in the 1980s, while contributing to the dissolution of the USSR, and not making Russia a democracy in the strictest sense, it is a step towards democracy.
So yes, democracy CAN happen. It is just very, very difficult for the global forces to sit tight and for single party states to relinquish control, so we have a weird dynamic that inhibits democracy.
Alex, to answer your question that you answered Kaylee's question with, which was basically, "Wouldn't the population want a democracy after a revolution?"
ReplyDeleteMy answer is that in a single party state, the lower class usually does not have much power. You have to remember that these modern revolutions are not peasant based, like the classical ones, it is based upon the urban class, the higher class, so to speak. So when you say the population, the "population" has no choice when the elite segments "vie for state control, court popular support, and seek to reconstruct state institutions" after the fallow of the chief executive's system, as phrased by Goldstone.
The whole thing is, in the modern era, the majority in a single party state usually has less say. Thus, the elite want to continue consolidating power, and the majority is hard-pressed to accept the new power because it is the elite that have it from the political power vested in them from the original regime, even though they may want a democracy.
This also lends to the cycle theory we have going on.
Amy-
ReplyDeleteI think there is definitely a difference between a revolution of the elites, and a revolution of the general population. I think as long as the change of power is only among the elite groups, as in the example of neopatrimonial states, there is no end to the cycle. One revolution brings on a single-party state very similar to the previous one. I think the general public needs to be involved in a revolution if there is to truly be a break in the cycle.
Question: Does the term "democratic regime" in the prompts above refer to a truly democratic state, or a neopatrimonial state?
In response to Gavyn's post, I agree with what he says in which the lower class does not have power. However, this is not just restricted to the "modern" revolutions, as you say. The peasants have never had much power or say over the revolution - it has just been the intellectuals influencing their thoughts and encouraging them to go along with their beliefs. As Goldstone says, their goal is merely to "preserve their livelihood, with as little contact with the state authorities as possible." The peasants, both in the modern and in the "classical" revolutions, have never been interested in gaining power; therefore, because they are so focused on the immediate needs of just making it day to day, this makes it easier for the elite to make single-party states.
ReplyDeleteNatalie-
ReplyDeleteThe idea that single party states is very true. This can be seen throughout history, not only in modern revolutions. The French and Russian revolutions are perfect examples of single party states (monarchies)leading to revolution. However, I do no think Goldstone is saying this happens all the time in these single party neopatrimonial states. I think he's pointing out the possibility of the occurence when democracy intervenes. And still the question is, what emerges from these revolutions? Why are they happening if they simply give way to a similar sort of regime? I don't know.
Katie, to answer your question about the USSR trying to establish communist governments, my knowledge on this topic is lacking, but I do know that in the 1980s, the Soviets entered Afghanistan to help support the established Communist government from the Mujahideen. This is similar to the US involvement in the Vietnam War, and how the US wanted to protect democracy there.
ReplyDeleteCommunism persisted until the 90s I believe (Soviets withdrew late 1980s), when the Taliban took hold of the government. Then again, we simply see a transfer of power, while still keeping the single-party state. Only with current US intervention was the Taliban ousted and a more democratic government was put in place.
This helps to support the tenuous relationship between internal and external forces, as the whole contention in Afghanistan is that if we pull out, will democracy fail? Will it revert back to a single-party state that is not democratic in any respect as we have seen in other examples? The Soviet war in Afghanistan parallels perhaps our experience now, albeit we are promoting democracy rather than communism, but what is the point in which we can determine that democracy stable?
Do modern revolutions breed single party states?
ReplyDeleteI do not think that modern revolutions breed single party states. Goldstone is misleading. Accodirding to him, revolutions DO breed single party states. However, these single party states remain a poor shadow of democracy. The general masses remain uneducated politically, and one man or "executive" still rules over a politically educated group. So therefore, while it may appear that a democratic regime has been put into effect, the majority of the people remain politically uneducated. Therefore, these so called “neopatrimonial” states are not democracies, but rather states that are influenced so much by outside forces that their own people and politicians have little so say in thier own interest. So, while it is vaguely possible that democracy can happen, I think it borderlines on the impossible, and is in all cases improbable.
Going off of Gavyn's response to Alex/Kaylee's posts:
ReplyDeleteIt does seem like the public would want control after a revolution. In our eyes, it seems like democracy would be the most logical step after overturning your oppressive government. But the majority of the Russians and the Nicaraguans and the Iranians are not like Americans. Not like Americans in the sense that they didn't live under the same liberties we have - none of this "free speech" or "freedom of the press." I think you have to take the context of the culture into account when asking questions like "why didn't they want democracy?" because in these cases especially, the reason might be that they were too oppressed in their previous conditions to even dream about taking control of the government, voting, and collectively establishing laws.
In response to Jessica Responding to Gavin
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jessica about how peasants not having power is not restricted to "modern" revolutions. When have the peasants ever held power? They rise up in revolution only when influenced by the words or promises of a better life by politicians. In truth, does it REALLY change the way they live thier lives? Their concerns will remain the same, despite who is ruling the country. The crops need tending, animals tended for, and in Russia's case, wives will still need to be beaten. Overall the lifestyle of peasants rarely change for the better or worse despite the revolutions that occur around them, and the chance of political leadership.
In response to Amy's response to Gavin's Response to Alex and Kaylee's posts....That's a mouthful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Amy when you say we have to consider the culture behind the revolution. To us, it seems that all of the population would want new rights and new freedoms after overthrowing an oppressed government. But as Amy said, we have been sheltered all of our lives and have lived with these things, taking them for granted. However, many of the people behind the revolutions cannot even begin to dream of the freedoms we experience everyday. I think that they would be afraid to take advantage of them even if they were offered. It would be extremely difficult for them to adapt to these freedoms after living a life in which they were not offered. It would take years and more than one generation to adapt to the new ideas, and in that vast amount of time, who knows how many other revolutions and changes are going to take place?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy does it matter that it is a 'modern' revolution anyway? How have revolutions changed?
ReplyDeleteGoldstone references the revolutions in France (1789), Russia (1917), and China (1911-1949) as being 'classic revolutions'. These are defined by traditional monarchies or imperial states being over-run with revolts from peasants. Then Goldstone goes on to talk about the 'modern revolutions' that happened in semi-modernized states led by modernized bureaucracies. But Goldstone never directly references what makes these states modern or why it has such a big effect. I will attempt now to explain what is meant by 'modernization' and why it has such a large effect.
I would describe modernization as a country's knowledge of technology and its ability to put that knowledge into use in the form of communications, infrastructure, transportation, etc. As well as apply its knowledge of modern politics into its policies and governmental structure. The advancements in communication made it easier for modern dictatorships to control the various elite classes. The "complex balancing act" was made much easier through technology. This probably allowed the dictator to take his separation of the elite classes even further. Meaning that when the dictator or 'chief executive', as Goldstone calls him, is unable to appease the various elite classes the country falls apart even faster. Also, with modernization came the various world superpowers. They were much more versatile in their ability to influence the smaller states. They could use their own prosperous economies and foreign aid to manipulate the small state. The conflicting governmental styles fired up this competition even more.
Overall, modernization reversed the direction of a revolution from happening from the inside out with the masses overthrowing the government to being from the outside in, the world's superpowers attempted to control these various small states.
Do modern revolutions breed single party states? I think the obvious answer is yes. The way in which these revolutions occur push countries towards single party states. If there is a person, or party that stands by the people of a nation that person gains tons of support. You can see that throughout history. In many cases that trust allowed that party to take control and create a single part state. In Germany, Hitler stepped up during a time of duress and when he got to the top he stayed there until his death. In the United States, although we never approached a becoming a single party state, was in the same situation. FDR was with us coming out of the Great Depression, and he was elected over and over. People are ok with the idea of having one controlling party as long as that party is doing well. In Russia, Germany, and Italy, laws were made so that the effects of this love with a party or leader could not be reversed. Everything that wasn't related to the party was destroyed and replaced with pro-party propaganda. Times of duress allow single party states to occur. When there is a change of government involved in that it is almost inevitable.
ReplyDeleteGoldstone makes revolution seem almost inevitable in a single-party state because the leader can only satisfy the elites for so long before economic, social, or foreign issues get in the way, or as he calls it, "the carrot and the stick." Not only must the leader maintain that he is the only plausible leader, but he must also satisfy the wants of the elites, though while provoking enough fear to keep the elites from social uprise. In addition, too much association with a foreign country may leave the elites feeling too excluded, which is also a problem for the leader. Seeing as all of these conditions have to be maintained by the leader, revolution is near impossible to avoid in a single-party state. In the section following, Goldstone mentions the extent that foreign countries, especially superpowers like the US can influence the process toward revolution and the type of government the country will adopt after the revolution. However, when the US supported a single-party state, anger fermented quickly towards the US, which overall lost the purpose they had in the first place in giving support to the country. What Goldstone seems to be saying here, as several other people have pointed out, is that single-party states breed revolution in most cases, though the next leadership type is still a single party, which means that revolutions in single-party states is a cycle. Part of the reason that most countries continue to follow the single-party state example even after a revolution may be attributed to the reason that they are used to it and are, in fact, scared to try something new, especailly since the US is looked upon so poorly in most revolutionary states.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in a modern state that the middle class has more leisure time than those of the early twentieth century, like Russia, whose revolution was led and started solely by the upper class, the survival of a single-party state seems even less likely because the middle class now has time and the means to realize the need for social upheaval and be able to start a revolution, which means that the leader has more needs to balance than would seem possible. So then, in a truly modern era, do single-party states breed revolution?
Amy-
ReplyDeleteI'm going way back and looking at your first comment, but I wanted to look at when a modern revolution may have a positive effect on a democratic regime. I don't think it seems plausible for a revolting country to fall right into a democratic system. Or is that not what you are saying? Do you think that the revolutions was merely coincidental with the time period? Would things be different if the revolutions were occuring today, earlier than they did?
I would like to respond to Grant's post.
ReplyDeleteGrant was talking about how the larger countries caused the revolutions in the smaller single party states for their own benefit. But what really is the benefit? What can these emerging countries give to a country already as well set and prosperous as America? At the end of the day weren't the two countries U.S. and U.S.S.R. just fighting to prove that their system of government was better? All of these revolutions somehow became part of some ego competition. Capitalism v. communism. The race to the moon, the games of chess, the arms race: America seemed committed to beating Russia at all costs. Do these things really matter? Was it worth putting these smaller countries through so many revolutions?
Ali-
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the conclusion of your post on whether or not single party states breed revolution, I think that what you are looking at with Russia is interesting, however I see it a different way. You saw the single party state as creating the means for a social upheaval in the middle class, however I think the Russia example is somewhat the opposite. It seems to me that as one class led the revolution, the others were either out of the loop, or supported whoever seemed to be the most powerful. I think that this helps the growith of the single party state. If everyone either supports the party, or doesn't know any better a single party state can rise very easily.
In response to Gavyn's response to Alex's response to Kaylee's question:
ReplyDeleteIn the world today, how does the education of the masses and power of the poor affect the revolution? We are no longer in a world where the peasants don't go to schooland will be farmers for the rest of their lives. If they are able to influence revolutionary thoughts due to a slightly higher status, how is the modern revolution change? In the single-party state, who are the elites and who is important enough for the leader to satisfy the needs of with the "stick and carrot," to use the words of Goldstone?
First off, I would like to say that I am confused. Goldstone is talking about neopatrimonial states falling into modern revolutions, but I would say that neopatrimonial states are pretty close to single parties in the first place. So if we have a pseudo-single party state, then a modern revolution, and then another single party state, aren't we not really getting anywhere other than killing some people along the way? I guess the real problem that I have here is that if a single person is holding the strings to all parliament, legislature, elections, etc. and there is still room for the elite to be divided, why would a single party state be any different. Just because we call it a single party state doesn't mean it is one in the most literal meaning of the label. There are always differing opinions. Hitler couldn't kill off all the people who had a different set of beliefs than he did, so I don't think anybody else can even get on his level. Any sort of single ruling figure will most likely result in revolution if the vulnerabilities presented by Goldstone are in place, so you would think we (our global society) would have the intelligence to deduce that maybe we should allow for more than one opinion to count in governmental rule. Obviously, however we are not that smart. I would suggest that this comes from the fact that revolution essentially strips power from everyone. There is no longer a system in place to determine hierarchy, so now there are too many opinions wanting to be heard. The easiest way to counteract this is for one opinion to trump the rest, and then we are back to our lovely single party again. I would love to see an example of a modern revolution that did not first start as a single party state.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kevin's original posting
ReplyDeleteFor your answer to be true you need to prove that revolutions trigger duress in the people. Revolutions could be a very liberating or stressful time for the people. And if the revolution is successful are the people going to want to be locked in with their new leader forever. Or, maybe, it is because of all of these superpowers reaching in that the revolution is not liberating but rather stressful which would cause them to want a single party state until the pressure of the larger country has gone. Also, what if the revolution fails, that could definitely cause a country to want a single party system until the wake of the failed revolution is over. Overall, I agree with you that times of duress (which are most likely happening in modern revolutions) create single party states.
In response to Katie's original post:
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a very interesting point. Culture and religion might also be a part of why these states didn't choose to become a democracy. I think a lot also depends on the type of elites that live in a country. For example, in Iran, a goup of the elites might have known they could get benefits by supporting a certain person to become the leader, thus using all in their power to get him elected, even violence. The rest of the population simply complied because there was nothing they could have done to change the situation. There are other reasons as well that a single-party government was chosen over a democracy.
To what extent is foreign power necessary in revolutions? Grant talked about how larger countries like the USSR and the USA would back revolutionaries in smaller countries. How does foreign power add to, if at all, the inevitability of a revolution? Goldstein says that foreign power is necessary, but I do not entirely agree. I would think the overthrow of a highly unstable government-i.e. Russia pre-revolution- would not necessarily be easy, but definitely manageable without foreign help.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Katie G's original comment,
ReplyDeleteI definitely think you are on to something about US involvement actually deterring these post modern revolution states from forming democracies. When we give our original support, and then give them the cold shoulder, we are giving them a horrible impression of how democracy acts (I keep using we for some reason, sorry I'll stop now). In a lot of cases, nationalism was a huge part of the revolution and I can see how anti-nationalist it would be for a country to follow in the footsteps of a nation that has just betrayed them. However, is there really a way for a country to bring about necessary change (hopefully democracy) in a single party state without becoming the enemy?
“Can modern revolutions – read 20th century – create democratic regimes?” In response to this specific question, I think the answer is no, in the case of 20th century revolutions. I do not think 20th century revolutions can create a democratic regime, for one main reason, which is the revolutions are not facilitated by the poor, maltreated, and underprivileged masses of the population. In the case of the French revolution, a prime example of a revolution which bred democracy, there were three classes at the onset of the revolution. The third class was unfairly taxed and repressed, to the point it broke away in opposition to the existing government, taking with it the majority of the population, and leaving behind those higher in social status and wealth.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the 20th Century revolutions, as described by Goldstone, “the masses are generally depoliticized… their goal is to merely preserve their livelihood.” Subsequently, revolutions took a different course in the 20th Century: “opposition of traditional elites opened the way for popular revolts that undermined the old regime. Modernizing elites drawn form urban professionals and middle-class groups completed the dismantling of old regime institution and sought to restructure state and society on a more modern basis.”
In my opinion, elite classes which start revolutions do not have the same motivations as lower classes which start revolutions. Elite classes seem to maintain the desire to have more, or at least equal, power guaranteed within the new state, resulting in government forms like communism or autocratic rule. Each political party which forms from the elite believes it is intellectually and economically qualified to rule the state. When peasants, or the lower class, spark revolutions and overthrow the government, they realize the masses are just like them, and therefore have the ability to set up democracies. The “third class” wants each member to have an equal opportunity to make success for themselves, whereas elite classes want to maintain superiority. In sum, 20th Century revolutions cannot create democratic regimes if they are facilitated by the elite class.
Democratization = new democracies coming into existence.
ReplyDeleteThis has occurred three times (Huntington)
1. 1828 - 1926: United Kingdom, United States
2. 1943 - 1962: India, Japan, West Germany
3. 1974 - 1991: Southern Europe, Certain African countries, and Latin America.
Revolutions have empirically occurred throughout society and there are instances in which democracies exist.
There are a couple quotes from Samuel Huntington, a famous political scientist, that seem applicable in this context.
“A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary... We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.”
I think this shows that authoritative power is essential in establishing a democratic regime. Absent a single party state, it can be hard to established a political democracy.
In response to Konrad,
ReplyDeleteI think that foreign power makes the takeover easier, but definitely not necessary. However, once the foreign power is involved, it might be difficult to decrease the involvement of that foreign power in the country. Goldstone, for example, explains how US policy weakened neopatrimonial regimes by encouraging an overdependence. Therefore, while foreign power is not necessary in the beginning, it becomes harder to steer away from that power as time goes by in the revolution.
Jeff:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the "competition" aspect of larger countries backing the revolutionaries of smaller countries financially, with arms, etc. is important to consider. However, I believe that just as the moon landing and the arms race possesed a multitude of motives, not simply ego, this type of event (big country backing small country revolution) contains ulterior motives as well. It is very possible that countries with unstable governments are threats to large nations such as the US, and backing revolutionaries is a way to set up a new government in those areas. It is also possible that the leaders of larger countries truly don't like the leaders in place of an unstable government, and simply want the removal of that person. Also, though not usually successful, larger countries can attempt to place a certain form of government into the revolutionary countries to have them as allies.
In response to Kevin’s original post:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position that modern revolutions breed single party states, however, you response raises some questions. In sum, you said that if a party stands by the people of the nation, it gains support. So, does it matter which people of the nation that party stands by? In the case of modern revolutions, the party has stood by the elites social groups, like the engineers, journalists, lawyers, ect. However, if the party were to stand by a different social group, say, the peasants or the very poor working class, would a single party state still be the outcome? In modern times, is it possible for lower classes to lead a revolution, or will/do all revolutions follow the patterns outline by Goldstone? (i.e. elite leading revolutions and depoliticized lower classes)
I guess this is coming out of Grant's original post, which may have been inspired by Kaylee...
ReplyDeleteYour comment about the manipulation and chaos of revolutions and gaining power got me thinking about we think of democracies and republics, in general, as being "good" and "free", when really they aren't really all they are cracked up to be. A large percentage of American's do not support Obama. It seems like it takes light-years for any legislation to get passed because the democrats and republicans can't agree. We are googolplex dollars in debt and our economy is in the tank. So what I'm really trying to get at is how can we measure the success of a government. Is the fact that it gets overthrown a good measure of how successful a government is, and should we view our democracy as the epitome of success because it has lasted so long? Are longevity and performance necessarily connected?
Alex S:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your most recent post. Assuming that the peasants and lower class masses of a population do want democracy (Amy and others discussed before how cultural factors could cause this to not be true), the only way for a modern revolution to breed democracy would be for the peasants to truly control every aspect of the revolution. There could be no help from elite classes, or from foreign powers, I believe. As soon as any elite group became involved, the focus of the revolution would shift from creating a democracy to gaining power.
Many have said that single party and communistic-type rule would be ideal if the government and population consisted of non-human beings. But, we are human, and given the opportunity, we will accept power, and in almost every case, abuse it. Elitist involvement in a revolution would lead to another single party state, as humans have not yet proven that an elite class gaining controll over a previous government can result in a democracy.
In response to Jenna’s original post:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think you are completely right with your point that not much changes, governmentally, in modern revolutions. In my opinions, this is Goldstone’s point. He is saying modern revolutions cannot breed democracy, because, among other reasons, not enough changes. From our outside point of view, it is true that no one gets anywhere in a modern revolution, and all the killing, social, and economic turmoil that results is not worth it. However, within the states which sustain modern revolution, the revolutionaries believe their cause is just and they are making a change for the benefit of themselves and the country. Compare this to political elections in the US: we get highly and emotionally evolved in choosing the next president, but, to outsiders, our extreme investment in a couple of candidates that will be our president for a maximum of eight years seems absurd. Not to mention, the Electoral College can override a popular vote in the end. Those of us which are part of the multi- party, democratic system, still put political future in the hands of an elite group of decision makers.
For these reasons, I think it is up to the discretion of a country and the people living in it to choose autocratic, democratic, or any kind of government which works for them. It is not within our jurisdiction to tell other countries they are not smart because they do not choose the same government type as we do, and our system is not as pure as we think it is to begin with. To me, this seems like we are the monarchy or oppressive dictator which tells the little guys what to do and how to live their lives, which will eventually result in dislike or expulsion of the US and its ideals, almost like a revolution between two countries.
In response to all those foreign power posts:
ReplyDeleteDemocracy promotion is bad.
Democratization creates a weak central authority, unstable democratic coalitions, and volatile mass politics. It potentially brings new social groups along with classes onto the political stage in which political leaders find no other way to reconcile political differences other than taking risky gambles. Newly ambitious elites feed upon nationalism in order to maintain their political coalition.
Edward Mansfield, a professor of political science at Colombia makes an interesting comparison with democracy promotion:
"Governing a society that is democratizing is like driving a car while throwing away the steering wheel, stepping on the gas, and fighting over which passenger will be in the driver's seat. The result, often, is war."
(Mansfield, 1995)
This nationalistic appeal that comes with democratization has been shown especially after the Cold War. Revived nationalist sentiment after the Cold War was high for formed communist states which inevitably lead to ill-conceived wars for expansion.
In the French Revolution, the parliamentary factions started drama by dissin the king's slow response to the threat of war with other states. Citizens grouped to join revolutionary armies to defend popular self-rule and the French nation. Even after the revolution ended up failing and becoming antidemocratic, Napoleon was able to utilize the popular nationalism within France in order to conquer Europe, thus using the popularity of his empire for the substance of democratic rule.
This is only exacerbated by foreign involvement in revolutions/democratization. Democratization that's induced, instead of occurring absent foreign involvement is more prone to problems.
Response to Ji-Hui-Gavyn-Ooi,
ReplyDeleteI like your comparison between Soviet involvement in Afghanistan and the US's involvement in Afghanistan. I think this brings up a couple key questions.
1. Is the US's presence in Afghanistan similar to its presence in other countries? Specifically, is staying in foreign countries part of the US's goal to promote and maintain democracies?
2. How likely are democracies / revolutions towards a democracy in a world that's gradually moving towards a multipolar world in which US primacy will cease to exist?
To what extent do modern revolutions further democratic regimes?
ReplyDeleteI think that modern revolutions further this by giving people a taste of having their views expressed. Although frequently there is only a single ruler with modern revolutions, there are still views being expressed and elites that are showing their opinions. Although the chief executive tries to divide the elites, to reinforce their divisions, the elites still show what they think. This helps in their cause, however oppressed they might be, and might slowly lead to democracy.
Additionally, foreign support of a democratic country might influence the ruling of the country. For example, a country aided by the US might be heavily influenced to change its ways so it can fit to a more democratic government style. Although this might weaken the government, it is at least attempting to put in place a democratic government.
Jessica-
ReplyDeleteI agree that a country which has been recieving foreigh support from a democratic nation in the midst of a revolution is more suceptible to becoming a democratic nation itself. It seems that the aiding country would have a lot of influence over the newly revolutionized country. In a revolution, the aiding country would pick the side with a government stlye most benificial to them. Therefore, money and military aid which a country could provide would probably sway the results of the revolution, and the resulting government style.