Another thread prompted me to think: What is it that has made the US, the UK, Canada and similar nations politically stable compared to other nations? I don’t mean stable in terms of the same party, but the same basic governmental system.
First, how do you define ‘stable’. The UK has experienced an empirial collapse in recent history, has on going terrorism problems, and two strong seperatist movements. And, of course, it actually dabbles in three quite different political forms - that is, it is functionally a democracy, but has a working government that openly includes socialism and a monarchy.
Canada is an immense country with essentially the population of a large western state, yet it still has a an aggressive seperatist movement.
And the US, of course, not only had a horrificly bloody civil war, we have deployed troops on US soil to quelch large scale civil disobidience multiple times in my lifetime. In my father’s life, we had to shift from largely lasse faire capitolism to significant socialist mechanisms to hold the nation together. Currently we seemed to be locked in struggle to maintain basic civil liberties.
And, for all our clucking about instability in the middle east, central america, etc., western societies have engaged in world wars, one killing roughly 50,000,000 people.
What makes these nations stable while others such as Mexico, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and a host of others prone to much more frequent changes in the basic frame of government (revolution, peaceful or otherwise)?
Each of these is quite different. For example Just a few generations ago Russia was a long standing monarchy/dictatorship. There was a massive civil uprising, and the resulting country rose to super power status in less than 60 years. The transition to democracy was fairly low casuality and despite all the rhetoric, economic development and systemic development have been surprisingly swift.
Stability often hinges more on external factors than anything else. Look at water monopolies, historically they have been incredibly stable, until internal corruption and decay makes them vulnerable to external hordes. And we see the same in developing regions in recent history - consider Guatamala and Afghanistan.
And, of course, we have to seperate rhetoric from reality. For example, our “allies” the Saud’s, happened to also be the nationality of most of the 9/11 terrorists. Not surprising, because $70B in oil money has gone to appease Wahabism. The ‘stability’ is the result of a triangle of self interest. The US, needing oil, gets modern arms to the Sauds. The House of Saud, in turn, feeds lots of money to appease extremists. Still, massive discontent and religious extremism flourishes - but since the modern weapons and massive oil revenues maintain ‘stability’, the consequences are often seen elsewhere.
For example, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and actively dismantled the moderately democratic institutions, the Islamic extremism filled the vacuum. That regime, like Saddam’s more secular regime in Iraq, was relatively stable. Both took external forces to remove, but since the basic needs of human existance are not being met, both regions remain highly unstable.
All these involve widely varying forms of government so I doubt that there is a simple answer to your question. Democracy, without constitutional protection for the basic rights of the human person, is not inherently stable. Look at South Africa over the last 100 years. Similiarly, it is silly to assert that unfettered capitolism is inherently stable. Capitolism, without countering government mechanisms and policies, inevitably leads to “Grapes of Wrath” scenarios (if that seems ancient, try ‘Mortgage fiasco’).
Personally, I think that the Church has it right. The most critical component for a stable society is a widespread recognition of the inalienable rights of the human person (as well defined by the Second Vatican Council). Where this belief is alive and widely held, a society can relatively flourish even under very evil institutions. Look at Iran and Cuba. The typical US citizen would feel far more comfortable (and inarguably be a lot safer) interacting with average citizens in these two hated enemy nations than in many ‘friendly’ nations around the world.
On the flip side, the absense of this belief can erode even great institutions. For example, I still cannot wholly fathom how we became the nation of secret prisons, torture, and open claims of wholly unchecked presidential powers. But I think that our culture of fear, division, and hate are a big part. Hate the minority, fear the very poor… Being the opposite of Christ’s message, it seems predictable that the outcome is oppressive and evil.
