Political unrest as a consequence of economic failure
How many times have I heard the expression that “strikes and protests are a national sport in France”? Certainly, the nation has a history and culture of uprising against the government: the current government apparatus is the fifth republic, implying at least four republics that have been replaced since the French learned to count, not to mention empires and provisional governments. Yet there is little substantial conversation about what grievances these protests have against the system. Officially, the public school system in the West teaches that rights and freedoms are the basis of these strikes, in line with the liberal mindset they want to foster. Yet we’ve heard the expressions “let them eat cake” and “no taxation without representation”, two taglines from the greatest revolutions in history, both of which speak more to pragmatic economics than civil liberties.
I’m sure there have been great advancements in area of political philosophy since the eighteenth century, but I turn to Rousseau for support here. Society improves the lives of those who live within it on aggregate. This is possible with the exchange of some natural rights for civil liberties: the right to roam around naked for the benefit of not having to see naked people when it is unwanted, the right to steal for property rights. In modern society, an increasing number of rights are surrendered to the government, giving it far more power, but also responsibility. A sixteenth-century subsistence farmer or eighteen-century frontiersman would not view their happiness or even ability to provide for themselves as the fault of their government. But with a rulebook so thick that commoners need someone with a graduate degree to interpret it for them, and a tax system so confusing that commoners need to pay someone to figure out how much money they owe the government, we ask the government for much more now.
Being a public servant is truly a thankless job. No one likes the taxman. Everyone has an idea of how the tax dollars should be spent. Not everyone can be happy with the result. And when the system is broken, the ones who have been maintaining it the whole time are held responsible. But the political apparatus runs pretty smoothly for the most part in most wealthy countries, despite all these challenges. Not necessarily one bureaucrat in particular, but the entire machine, the system of checks and balances and controls. An efficient government is like special effects or plastic surgery: it’s unnoticeable when you don’t know about it, and it’s only upon learning about it that one can appreciate the intricacies.
For the most part, people ignore the government. Good policy won’t be shocking and bitter pills are generally delivered with honey. Bad or absent policy is invisible until the consequences strike many years later. Even then, well-communicated reforms to address the issue will quell any outrage. General social unrest only strikes as a result of sustained economic failure, which quite frankly, is the fault of the government (in wealthy countries anyways; in poor countries without much agency, it is the fault of the government of wealthy countries). However, the protesters usually protest something that is not the root of the issue, or sometimes not even symptomatic of the cause. Perhaps it’s because it’s difficult to see through the economic smog. Or maybe they have too much pride to march about the price of bread.
For many years, Hong Kong has been in decline: its denizens live in coffin apartments, beholden to the will of multinational corporations while they watch the mainland get rich and their inhabitants buy from Hong Kong stores. Then, the government overreaches, stepping on the pride of a people whose head is already bowed. Then we have the Umbrella Protests in Hong Kong. Similarly in the Middle East, years of foreign interference and poor planning have reduced a proud people to stagnant living conditions and a government that seems to have abandoned them. Meanwhile, every prosperous country in the West is a democracy, rife with civil liberties. This gives us Arab Spring.
Over a year and a half ago, I wrote about Canada’s purported immigrant crisis and my concerns for the incoming immigrants who have become pseudo-migrant workers. Surprisingly, the topic continues to be a popular point of discussion and criticism, especially on the political right. Like the rest of the examples I’ve discussed, I think this is largely the fault of economic failures once again. The abandoned working and middle-class citizenry who are unable to afford a home or even groceries see these newcomers as competitors for already-scarce resources; a healthy does of xenophobia doesn’t hurt either. Certainly, there was opposition to immigration during each wave: during the twentieth century as definitions of whiteness were changing, the Portuguese and Italian immigrants were discriminated against, as were the African diaspora to Quebec and Chinese immigrants everywhere. But as prices continue to grow in Canada while wages remain stagnant, righteous anger about putting Canadians first does as well.
Yet, unlike the similar populist uprising in the states, Canadian politicians have not embraced this voting base. This is due to two reasons: they are all corporate shills interested in keeping wages in Canada depressed, and they understand that Canada’s population needs to grow. This wave of cheap labour in Canada keeps wages for entry-level positions and gig jobs artificially low, and grows Canada’s domestic market. With a birth rate of 1.4 children per woman and a population of forty million, Canada simply needs a larger population base to be relevant. Importing fully-grown and educated workers is simply good economics. Of course, this means nothing to the economically disadvantaged in Canada who just want to live their lives in peace. Hence, the protests.
Despite my cynicism, there is one point of brightness I can’t make vanish with my wand of economics, and that is the political student protest. The most pure-hearted protests are the ones that are about issues outside of the country they are in: anti-war, anti-apartheid, and most recently, anti-Zionist. Free from pressing economical constraints and history lectures fresh in their heads, they are empowered to stand up against what they perceive to be fundamental injustices in the world. And history has vindicated them.
It’s not a novel idea that people are mostly self-interested, but the point I am trying to carry is that people are often misguided about the source of their suffering. When the economics are good, any slights to identity and freedoms are overlooked. When times are tough, every policy decision and outcome is scrutinized. At the risk of sounding like a bootlicker, economics is of utmost importance to political stability, and often the root cause of any unrest. Despite what Western bias will have you believe, the root cause of the protest halfway across the world generally aren’t for want of democracy and freedom of speech, but rather for want of stability and prosperity.
