June 16, 2009

WHEN, NOT IF:

Recession and Revolution (ROSS DOUTHAT, 6/16/09, NY Times)

In 1930s Europe, a economic crisis toppled democratic governments, and swept dictators into power. Liberal societies seemed ineffectual; authoritarianism was the coming thing.

The crash of 2008, though, may end up having the opposite effect. Over the last few years, both American alarmists and anti-American triumphalists have emphasized the disruptive power of populist, semi-authoritarian political actors — from Ahmadinejad’s Iran to Vladimir Putin’s Russia to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. But these regimes, which depend on petro-dollars for stability at home and influence abroad, may prove far more vulnerable to economic dislocation than their democratic rivals.

Amid the wreckage of the Great Depression, intellectuals and policymakers looked to fascist Italy and the Soviet Union for inspiration. But it’s hard to imagine anyone seeing a model in the current crop of authoritarian governments. It’s much easier to imagine them being swept away, if the recession endures, by domestic discontent.

Maybe something worse would take their place. Certainly there are authoritarian states — Egypt, Saudi Arabia — where the danger of an Islamist revolution should keep American policymakers awake at night.

But as an ideological rival to liberal democracy, Islamism isn’t in the same league with the totalitarianisms of the 1930s. And there aren’t any other likely candidates on the horizon. Indeed, for all the talk about a crisis of global capitalism, what’s most striking about the great financial meltdown is how little radicalism it’s spawned.


After 9-11 there was much chest-thumping on the Left and Right about how the End of History had been discredited, but Islamicism is no more an alternative than is Hindu Nationalism.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 16, 2009 7:54 AM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« THE SEEDS OF AN INSIGHT: | Main | ANGLO, NOT EURO: »