Chapter 17 Political violence

Robert J. Goldstein, Comparing the European Revolutions of 1848 and 1989 Chapter 17 Political violence

Discusses similarities but ignores a glaring contrast. Revolution of 1848 was largely a backlash against a 19th century capitalist system. It was a revolution of ideas of nationalism, liberalism, and socialism. Marx published Wage-Labor and Capitalism in 1847 and the Manifesto of the Communist Party in February of 1848. Crop failures were a big issue. Goldstein’s comparison

are

Failure of communism, or another consequence of world oil crisis? Goldstein’s comparison

Add to this list, social movements of the 1960s and current revolutions in the Middle East. • Tarrow talked about phenomena referred to as “cycles of contention”. • 1848, 1968, 1989, and 2011 share a common denominator in the expansion of communications. • 1848: “recent explosion of literacy”, political pamphlets and newspapers. 1968: student and labor unrest broadcast worldwide via TV and radio with the diffusion of nonviolent resistance tactics, IE sit-ins 1989: “the growing penetration of radio and television in Eastern Europe”. 2011: Cel phone and internet technology reaching Middle East populations. • Enables a beleaguered population to know that they are not alone, and that others facing a seemingly invincible power structure come to realize that there is a way to create change. Sidney Tarrow and Social movements

Tarrow saw the pattern of cycles of contention. These cycles are assisted by communications but we must remain cautious about clearly defining causality. It would seem to be clear that communications played a role in the spread of revolution in the Middle East, but communications did not cause the conditions of hunger and unemployment that were the impetus of these revolutions. Economic instability = political instability Did facebook depose mubarak?

“Legitimacy erodes as the regime shows it is ineffective in running the country. Uncontrollable inflation, blatant corruption, massive unemployment, or defeat in war demonstrate that the government is ineffective.” This statement from the textbook echoes the arguments made by Robert Rotberg in “The New Nature of Nation-State Failure.” If, as some would contend, government is inherently ineffective, wouldn’t it follow that political instability and revolution would be the norm?

“A government’s first impulse when faced with domestic unrest is to crush it and blame a handful of ‘radicals and troublemakers’.” This may be true in early feudal/traditional societies, but not in modern societies. In modern, industrial societies with freedom of the press, government’s know that a crackdown will often have the effect of gaining public support for those opposing the government. The book talks about violence, but not the threat of violence, which is an important distinction.

Social movements utilize peaceful forms of protest to draw attention to their grievances. Large groups of people assembled with grievances offers the threat of a potential violence that cannot be controlled. IE if the Rally to Restore Sanity had become violent, would the Capital Police have had the resources for crowd control. (estimated 215,000 people)

By remaining peaceful, the protest is most effective, drawing sympathy and attention to the cause. If government responds with force to a peaceful demonstration, the protesters receive even greater sympathy. If, on the other hand, the protesters are violent, police actions are considered necessary by the public to restore peace and security and the cause of the protesters is delegitimized. In Libya and Egypt we saw attempts by government forces to claim that protesters were violent, and the government was only seeking to restore order.

“The governments that terrorists hate are usually corrupt and repressive.” The book states that these groups hate the United States because we support these governments. Is it possible that they see us as also corrupt and repressive? Would that be a stretch if your only exposure to Americans is exploitative multinational corporations (MNCs)? terrorism

“Terrorists are not insane; they are highly calculating. They aim their acts to panic their enemies, to gain publicity and recruits, and to get the foe to overreact and drive more people to side with the terrorists.” Consider in our discussions the manner in which our knowledge and our experiences influence our worldview. Consider a young man, whose education has been predominantly religious, who has suffered in some manner from existing institutional arrangements, who lacks political knowledge. How easily would this person be to influence and draw in to terrorism? “The war in Iraq probably helped boost al-Qaeda recruitment, according to a report from leading Western think-tank.” Paul Reynolds, BBC News

“Ultimately, only modernization of Muslim lands – a long and very difficult task – can solve the problem of Islamist terrorism.” If Islam is a part of the Constitution, is this statement a threat to sovereignty? Is this a Western bias in evaluating the problem? It is consistent with Rostow’s pragmatic abandonment of tradition in order to develop and modernize. What if Muslims don’t want to abandon their culture any more than Christians would be willing to give up theirs?

One of the great ironies of the third world. An authoritarian regime that promotes development, education, and more equitable distribution of resources is much more likely to be deposed than an authoritarian government that represses the masses and keeps them impoverished and ignorant. This provides incentives to keep the people repressed. Economic downturns happen as the result of exogenous forces beyond the control of government. In the more enlightened and modernized society, this will usually lead to a call for a change in government. In the countries that still exist in the middles ages, it is just more poverty and suffering by a matter of degree. Rising expectations

Intellectuals: who offer a vision beyond what is currently available Unemployed young males: have nothing to lose and time on their hands Often are the same people: French and Iranian Revolutions – unemployed lawyers and college graduates. Islamic jihad spurred by Muslim clerics (thinkers) and soldiered by desperate young men with nothing to lose. Clerics paint a picture of Western culture and economic ideas being the cause of their deprivation. Rostow would argue that it is the result of their clinging to outmoded religious ideas and the refusal to pursue a more pragmatic course. Where the clerics find success in evoking change, do conditions improve? Is that failure to improve due to domestic policies or might it be the result of economic sanctions imposed by the Western world? Every revolution has them

If we live in a mud hut and everybody else lives in a mud hut; we are content. It is when others live in mansions next to our squalor that we become dissatisfied. If we believe that they have that mansion because they worked harder for it or are smarter, and we believe that we have the same possibility of success, we tolerate it. If we feel that the system itself is “rigged”, and in reality we never had any option but to live in a mud hut, we look for a change in government. In democracies we vote a party out of office in a peaceful transfer of power. In nondemocratic societies, the only option is revolution or civil war. Relative deprivation

“students especially hated the Shah for his repression of freedoms.” Women allowed to vote, Khomeini exiled not executed, recognized Israel, industrialized Iran, improved healthcare, education, and infrastructure. In order to teach the Islamic faith, you had to prove you had some theological training. With Khomeini: “Strict Islamic standards of morality were enforced – no alcohol or drugs, veils for women, and suppression of non-Islamic religions.” Iranian revolution

Talking about two separate issues. Brinton was talking about the short term revolution in which dissatisfaction increases and one regime is overthrown to be replaced by another regime that may be no better. Skocpol was talking about revolutions that lead to substantial social changes well beyond a mere change in government. She compared revolutions in France, China, and Russia in where there were substantial changes within society itself that lasted over a period of ten or more years. These changes were often the result of war or economic crises that divided elites. The state collapses and new forms of government (not just new regimes) step into the void. Brinton (1938) vsskocpol (1979)

Chapter 17 Political violence