Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
Really? The US effectively excluded 70% of the population (the poor, women, non-whites) and from effective political participation until 1920 or so. While you did have that nasty civil war over slavery, I'm not sure that the history of the United States between 1776 and 1920 could be described as a "disaster."

China has effectively excluded 95% of the population from political participation since 1949, and has been stunningly successful over the past 20 years.

I'm being provocative, of course--we academics get paid to be argumentative. I certainly think democracy is, in the long run, a good thing. I'm also with you on the overall merits of a stronger US stance in favor of political reform in the Arab world.

However, I am suggesting that the relationship between political exclusion, revolt, and national "success" is far murkier than we might wish.

Rex,

Come now, the American example you give list segments of the populace with no historic expectation of inclusion in politics directly. As our society continued to evolve under this new model of governance it created such expectations over time and had to adjust to bring these new stakeholders into the fold.

It is a far different matter to exclude, or discount the inclusion of some segment of the populace that has such a historic expectation of inclusion or degree of influence. For the influence of landed gentry such as the American founding fathers to be discounted by half merely because they lived in the colonies rather than in England. Or in Afghanistan, to strip influence and participation from one segment of society and vest it all in another every time the tide of war shifts the balance of power under the hand of some external power or another.

How many of that 95% of the Chinese populace has a historic expectation of inclusion? This is not a game of simple math, but one which requires taking into account (as my Contracts professor used to say) "all the surrounding facts and circumstances," and not just what is written within the four corners of the contract document itself.

The issue in the Middle East today, and I suspect in China tomorrow, is a change in expectation fueled by the modern information age. Just and changes in American society created an expectation in Women that had to be addressed; just as WWII created changes in expectations of the African American society that had to be addressed.

The world is changing, expectations are changing. Governments, however, have been held static. Many don't want to change. It's good to be King. Many we don't want to change. It's good to have a King monitor ones financial and security interests. But Kings who cling too long to too much in eras of such social change end up with their heads in a bucket or their necks in a noose. Sponsors of such kings who cling too long in the face of such change find themselves beset by "Anarchists" or "Terrorists"; or mired in "COIN" campaigns dedicated to preserving the status quo.

I stand by my argument, but you have made me have to flesh it out a bit with your challenge, and for that I thank you.

Bob