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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|