THE LONDON EXPERIENCE---by Alex Redd
        August 13, 2002  

    It is good to be back in the U.S. following a rewarding summer 
experience of study in London. I was intrigued by advanced political 
ideologies from British liberal theorists who pushed for social reform 
through their writings. I thought to share with you my analysis deduced 
from some of these political philosophers specifically Edmund Burke, a 
political author and incrementalist on social reform. 
    The crux of my argument will focus on whether the method of rapid 
social reform without preserving traditional values and institutions is 
necessary or is gradual (slow) social reform with respect to hold in 
place traditional institutions and values would be the best solution to 
social change? Great Britain, France, Liberia, Nigeria, Iran and Latin 
America have been victimized (except Britain) by rapid social reform 
through attempts to implement modernity, which undermines the 
traditional political foundations of these countries.  
    I would argue that the method of rapid social reform without regard 
for established political norms is detrimental in any form. Up to date, 
Great Britain maintains its national character by preserving its 
traditional norms---the monarchy, representative of a family. In 
keeping with the conservative approach, the preservation of traditional 
institutions and values in society is as sacred with its historical 
importance that directs the course of individuals and society at large 
for peaceful co-existence. What intrinsic values do these traditional 
institutions have that Burke wants preserved, even if a change is to 
come? For example, in England the monarchy is perceived as an intrinsic 
value or institution representative of a family, which is the basic 
unit of society. The monarchy therefore should preserve and sustain its 
core values for societal ordinance. An attack to despise the monarchy 
would seem like disruption of the fundamental societal ethos, which 
both informs and provides bedrock values that underwrite society at 
large.             
     Despite the short-lived revolution by Oliver Cromwell in the 1850s 
coupled with religious strife, the monarchy was restored in 1860 with 
historical respect to Britain’s traditional norms. Though there was 
sporadic agitation for the establishment of democracy in Britain, but 
the capacity of British forces to accommodate each other over the 
centuries without going for each other’s throat is what I admire about 
their politics. This is not to say that British history lacked violence 
or conflict. Northern Ireland today stands as witness to the British 
capacity for violence. But at no point did a foreign conqueror or 
domestic opposition with a dramatically new plan for politics prevail; 
so British politics, unlike the politics of virtually every other state 
of the world, never was formally redesigned. However, to welcome social 
change gradually with respect to preserve traditional norms can suffice 
for national stability, but this was not the case with France in its 
1789 revolution.   
     French Revolutionists, products of the enlightenment period, 
ignored historical traditions and values to effect social change. In an 
attempt to experience rapid social reform, the French revolutionists 
had a rational thought to model their society on absolute truths 
equivalent in certainty to mathematical axioms. Their model had no 
basis in historical contingency---they violently ousted the traditional 
system of monarchy. Thereafter came difficulties to create a viable and 
stable political state with three changes in governmental form. Such 
rapid social change has its historical effect on developing countries 
across the continents.
     In contemporary Africa and other developing countries, rapid 
social reforms have caused devastating effect that result in chaos and 
prolong civil wars. For example, in Nigeria, Liberia and Iran, an 
attempt for rapid social, economic and political change through 
modernization was met with bloody conflict that sparked divisions of 
ethnic hatred, mistrust and unlawful accountability. The Iranian 1979 
revolution blamed America for eroding its Islamic traditional values 
with modernity. In Nigeria, fragmented ethnic groups cling to their 
local resources by clashing with the federal system because modernity 
undermined their traditional belief system. An effort to impose 
modernity in Latin America ushered in bitter class conflict and 
political upheavals that introduced military dictatorships. In Liberia, 
eagerness for rapid social reform notably 1979 by the People’s 
Progressive Party (PPP), a political party, without a well-defined 
political agenda or ideology called for a national strike against the 
William R. Tolbert government for ÿthe government’s inability to 
institutionally integrate indigenous Liberians. The rice riot followed 
thereafter. Civil disobedience and violence, a way to express dissent 
became prevalent as a doctrine that manifested itself into the 
butchering of Liberia’s 19th president. Since then Liberia has been 
abnormal among world states. 
     The current mess the country faces today traces back to such rapid 
social change with regard to preserve its political tradition. Couldn’t 
we have compromise our political differences into a more civilized 
method without violence and disrespect for existing laws? Tolbert was a 
reformist. He had welcomed political diversity by declaring the 
symbolic ÿTotal Involvement for Higher Heightsÿ with the intention to 
gradually transform the system. The old guard from the Tubman 
administration was fading away. Imbued by modern technological ideas, 
Tolbert was an industrialists and encourager of new ideas from 
university ÿjump startsÿ for social reform. My point is that 
microeconomic management for political stability was to some extent, 
ethically sound unlike other regimes that followed thereafter. During 
the Tolbert era, at least my dad received his paycheck on time unlike 
today’s Liberia. Should have itchy advocates for rapid social change 
found an amicable and passive approach toward reform? 
     In any case, the danger and consequences of rapid social reform 
have unravel with devastating effect---- ethnic hatred, mistrust, the 
breakdown of rule and law and abject poverty. The need for social 
reform is necessary but such change must not tend to undermine our 
traditional political foundation and belief systems. Democracy, a case 
in point should be encouraged with the hope of gradually absorbing into 
any nation’s political system with caution and respect for the original 
traditional norms. 
      Incremental social reform method might be applied to contemporary 
Africa and other developing countries with the hope of keeping their 
original culture alive. In any event, social reform is inevitable 
depending on the belief system that establishes the traditional bedrock 
of a country and its people. Social change in exemplified countries 
across the continents would require an incremental social reform with 
the accommodation of modernity and the preservation of some traditional 
institutions and values.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, visit:

        http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/aam.html

AAM Website:  http://www.danenet.wicip.org/aam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------