A couple points raised in the video. First, civil wars are not solely the result of extreme inequality, poverty, or ethnic diversity. And they are less likely to arise in either a functioning free society or in a functioning dictatorship, but--and this is the second point--in the ground in-between: "Researchers call this condition anocracy, a state where the old rules are losing legitimacy, but no new rules have fully replaced them. And again and again, it appeared before societies descended into violence." That is: "A place where there are elections but the rules no longer feel fair. Where there is a government, but fewer and fewer people believe it is legitimate." Thus:
The hatred [between groups] is rarely the trigger. The trigger is usually a breakdown in the systems that allow people with differences to live together peacefully. Once those systems weaken, old divisions can suddenly become dangerous.
He later expands on this:
And in a place like that, disagreement stops being normal politics and becomes a question of survival. If you no longer believe the system will deliver a fair result, then losing an election isn't a setback. It's a threat. Every contest becomes existential. But this almost never arrives as a dramatic collapse. It arrives as the slow erosion of one quiet, invisible thing: the belief that the system, whatever its flaws, is basically legitimate.
In other words, once people in a country cease to believe that disagreements can be settled peacefully, the next step is to settle differences violently.
But in reviewing the Wikipedia article, it notes that it is not necessarily being an anocracy that creates the political instability and violence, but the transition from democracy or dictatorship to an anocracy where the danger arises; particularly the transition from democracies to anocracies and the magnitude of the change. In other words, the water in which the frog sits being slowly brought to a boil is less likely to result in civil war than where the water is quickly brought to a boil.
VIDEO: "Scientists Found A Warning Sign Before Civil Wars"
Michael Button | Patterns of History (15 min.)
But the most important ingredient is still not present. For a civil war to occur, you must have two clearly delineated and opposing sides. Last time it was North and South...and both had organized armies. If we had a civil war today...who would it be between? I suppose a lot of people would say "Oh, that's easy. It would be between the Left and the Right." Fair enough, but I'd suggest they go stand on their front porch...or go into town and look up and down the street. Who is on your side...and who isn't? Until people began picking and joining sides...and then organizing into militias...there is no possibility of civil war. Looking at events over the past few years, I would say that widespread looting and rioting...ie a "free for all" among certain segments of the population is much more likely than a true "civil war."
ReplyDeleteThat is why Bracken's Civil War cube is a good way of looking at how things will fall out.
DeleteI think this is a rehash of Walter's sub-par book. My $ is with Turchin. Walter is lame.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read Walter, but I agree that Turchin provides a more compelling analysis of the factors. That said, I can see how the transition from a liberal democracy to something more tyrannical, just as is happening in the West, could lead to more social disorder.
Delete