what you get here

This is not a blog which opines on current events. It rather uses incidents, books (old and new), links and papers to muse about our social endeavours.
So old posts are as good as new! And lots of useful links!

The Bucegi mountains - the range I see from the front balcony of my mountain house - are almost 120 kms from Bucharest and cannot normally be seen from the capital but some extraordinary weather conditions allowed this pic to be taken from the top of the Intercontinental Hotel in late Feb 2020

Monday, June 30, 2025

WHY DON’T WE REVOLT?

We are all feeling angry and alienated from “the power elite” (however that’s defined) – particularly in the USA. But why on earth are we not expressing that in outright revolt? Is it simply fear? Whether that is of being different – or of the consequences now that breaking the law is increasingly faced with severe penalties. It’s rare for me preach revolution but 2 books have inspired me to explore that option – the first by a Turkish/US writer Twitter and Tear Gas Zeynep Tufekci (2017) who has this site; and the 2nd by a Greek/US writer After Democracy – imagining our political future Zizi Papacharisti (2021) whose intro’ puts it this way -

I decided to focus on three varieties of regimes:

1. My first focus was democracies that are vibrant and have a long history but also are somehow flawed. These are democracies under distress. To obtain as broad a representation as possible, I worked with the following countries: Brazil, Canada, Greece, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States. I chose these because of their considerable experience with democracy but also because of their successes and recent difficulties with corruption, economic insecurity, and populism. The countries selected reflect a variety of ways in which democracies have responded to contemporary problems.

2. My second focus was regimes that are labeled as authoritarian by the West but are populated by citizens with democratic aspirations. Democracy cannot be reimagined by excluding those who have not had the opportunity to experience it. Moreover, democracy cannot exist in the imagination of the West only. Therefore, I interviewed citizens in China and Russia. I chose these countries because they are both major forces in global politics yet typically are excluded from discourses on democracy. Any country may undergo a level of authoritarianism in its form of governance. Democracies in the West have had their share of authoritative rulers, and several have emerged out of dictatorships to reclaim democracy. The citizens of authoritarian regimes have a democratic future, and they should have a say in it.

3. My final focus was attempted but failed democracies. In most of these cases, it was not easy for me to travel to these countries, and identifying or interviewing people from these countries presented a danger to them and me. For example, even if I were able to set up interviews in Syria or Afghanistan, the task of networking, obtaining translators, and conducting the interviews would be difficult, would draw too much attention, and would probably not yield meaningful responses from people who felt endangered. So I decided to work with refugees from those countries. I worked with local embassies and refugee centers in countries that maintain an entry port to the European Union, where frequently refugees flee. I interviewed refugees from Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Albania, Egypt, Ghana, and Pakistan and used translators provided by refugee centers and embassies to conduct the interviews in the refugees’ native language when necessary.

Recommended Reading
the other being Sidney Tarrow 

the aim of this book is to look at revolutions around the world and through history: not only at 
their causes, crises and outcomes, but also, for the more distant events, at their long-term 
legacies and their changing, sometimes contested meanings today. Historians, mostly native of or active within those societies, have been asked to reflect on the following questions: What were the essential causes of the revolution? What narrative of events, protagonists and ideologies is most commonly accepted? What impact is it believed to have had? What legacy does it have today in national self-perception and values? Has this changed significantly over past decades?

one name scholars have applied to this tradition is the “elitist theory of democracy.”

 It holds that public policy should be made by a “consensus of elites” rather than 

by the emotional and deluded people. It regards mass protest movements as 

outbreaks of irrationality. Marginalized people, it assumes, are marginalized for a reason. The critical thing in a system like ours, it maintains, is to allow members of 

the professional political class to find consensus quietly, harmoniously, and without 

too much interference from subaltern groups. The obvious, objective fact that the professional political class fails quite frequently is regarded in this philosophy as uninteresting if not impossible. When anti-populists have occasion to mention 

the elite failures of recent years—deindustrialization, financial crisis, opioid epidemic, everything related to the 2016 election—they almost always dismiss them as inevitable

If only it were possible, they sigh, to dissolve the people and elect another.



by using the concepts of myth, memory, and mimesis, it is possible to identify and illuminate four basic stories of revolution which show up in a surprising number of places and cultures across impressive stretches of time. These four stories are the Civilizing and Democratizing story of revolution, the Social Revolution story, the Freedom and Liberation story, and the Lost and Forgotten story.
introductory chapter demonstrates the richness of the author’s reading.

No comments:

Post a Comment