Does extreme poverty breed violence and ultimately revolution? Many people believe that it does, and seek to explain phenomena ranging from guerrilla insurgencies to Islamist terrorism accordingly.
But Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville, the two great social analysts of the 19th century, knew better what makes people tick, and what makes societies change. Extreme poverty breeds apathy, not rebellion. The very poor can at most be used for occasional demonstrations of anger, but they are not the stuff from which either terrorists or revolutionaries are made.
A far more critical group in any society are those who have begun to move forward to new conditions, but then find their path blocked. Their desires and ambitions are not unrealistic in the circumstances, but they are frustrated. Things do not move as fast as they want them to, or not at all, owing to conditions that they do not control. Opportunities exist, but they cannot be seized or realized.
This group, not the desperately poor and helpless, forms the great mobilizing force of violent protest, and ultimately of major change.
The politics of frustration has been particularly apparent in the postcommunist world during the last 15 years. The heavy hand of nomenklatura rule was gone, and the vision of a new life like that in the open societies of the West seemed real. Yet, in fact, things initially got worse. The route to prosperity and freedom was not straightforward. On the contrary, it led through a valley of tears.
New world
People reacted in a variety of ways. Those who had the chance migrated, first to their homeland's centers of economic progress, then abroad, to countries and places where the new world could be found immediately. Those who stayed behind began to vote in strange ways -- electing, for example, the successors of the old Communist parties that they had been glad to get rid of only a few years before.
The EU, for all its weaknesses, has helped the postcommunist countries of Eastern and Southeastern Europe immensely. It made the valley of tears bearable both by offering financial and other assistance and by holding out the promise of membership and economic prosperity in the near future. Equally important, had the EU not supported the creation of an administrative and social infrastructure of liberty, there might well have been a more serious communist or even fascist backlash in Poland, Hungary and elsewhere.
While the politics of frustration was thus controlled in the postcommunist world, it broke out with a vengeance in the Islamic world. Here, too, the phenomenon was not new. With the onset of modernization, millions of people were uprooted from their traditional communities and ways of life. Young men, in particular, saw the prospect of a life more like that presented to them by Western television.
But they soon discovered that realizing this prospect would require a longer and more arduous journey than they had anticipated. In fact, it would take at least a generation, during which much of the effort of modern life would have to be made, while the fruits of this effort would remain elusive.
Migration
Earlier generations may have borne the burden of working and waiting more readily, but nowadays people want results here and now. If the benefits do not come quickly -- and for most people they do not -- they get restless.
The massive migration processes that have only just begun will be the major issue of the coming decades. Particularly in Africa, migration will be almost the only quick route to modernization.
Those who do not manage to get to other countries, or who fail in the countries to which they have migrated, are in a quandary. For them, the old world of traditional ties and customs is gone, but the new world of modernity remains out of reach. They are lost in a limbo of uncertainty and disappointment.
It has been argued that this was one of the problems of "belated nations" like Germany 100 years ago. Seductive leaders (Hitler among them) exploited the resulting sense of frustration. Whatever the value of such theories, it is evident that the frustration of young people's ambitions in modernizing countries makes them the object of preachers of hate and tempts them to leave the course of plodding progress and turn to more dramatic action.
What we call "terrorism" has many causes, and one must beware of facile explanations. However, the politics of frustration, of ambitions raised and then thwarted, is clearly one such cause.
It is thus also a challenge to those of us living in more fortunate circumstances. If we do not wish to be submerged in violence and authoritarian responses to it, international institutions must do for the modernizing world what the EU has managed to do for the postcommunist countries. For the world's democracies, there is no greater or more important task.
Ralf Dahrendorf is an author, a former European commissioner from Germany, and a member of the British House of Lords. Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under