Why Societies Don’t Rebel against Tyranny

Why Societies Don't Rebel against Tyranny
[13-08-2015 00:02:50]
José Azel
Investigador, Universidad de Miami

(www.miscelaneasdecuba.net).- Memes is the neologism coined by British
scientist Richard Dawkins to explain the way in which ideas and
behaviors are transmitted in society by non-genetic means in contrast
with transmission by genes. For instance, a child constantly exposed to
home violence may come to accept violence as natural.
For the social media generation, memes take the form of images, videos,
hashtags, etc., that spread person to person in the social networks.

In political science, I think of memes as sociocultural genes that help
explain how, in totalitarian societies, the presumption of power deposes
the presumption of liberty. Why do peoples not instinctively rebel
against tyranny? The answer transcends repression.

Usually, the exercise of power alone is not sufficient to preserve an
oppressive regime. At some level, there has to be a tacit acceptance, by
both the ruled and the rulers that the ruling class possesses some
legitimacy to the right to rule. In China, Vietnam, North Korea, and
Cuba, the revolutionary mysticism attached to Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh,
Kim Il-sung, and Fidel Castro have served to confer legitimacy.

Over time, this legitimacy replaces the presumption of liberty with the
acceptance of tyrannical powers as lawful. Contrary to the belief of
some, this legitimacy is not undermined by economic or diplomatic
engagements with democratic societies. If it did, we would have seen by
now, in that totalitarian universe, political reforms favoring
individual freedoms and limiting the coercive powers of government.

China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba are regimes with an enormous
concentration of coercive power in the hands of the ruling class. This
coercive power has engendered the generalized presumption that the
rulers are born with the right to command and the people are born with
the obligation to obey. In these societies, a long history of physical
and intellectual coercion has fostered memes of acquiescence.

Governments are predatory institutions that sustain themselves with
coercive power. In a democracy, we grant our consent, and we oblige
ourselves to do whatever the government tells us to do or not to do.
But, we appreciate that government officials are not deities, nor more
enlightened than the electorate. Thus, we embrace a lifetime presumption
for liberty. In free societies, our memes inform us that without limited
government, democracy is not workable.

Even in democracies there is a danger, as political scientist Tom G.
Parker points out, that our consent can be perverted to be infinitely
elastic in support of unlimited government. If we vote for a policy or a
politician repressing liberty, we have agreed to be bound by the
repressing policy espoused by the politician.

If we vote against the policy or politician, we have participated in the
process by which such decisions are made, thereby consenting to be bound
by the results of the process. And if we do not vote, we also consent by
surrendering our opportunity to participate. By this logic, we have
consented to a restriction in our freedoms no matter what we do.

In democratic societies, this consent conundrum is managed reasonably
well via free, fair, competitive, and frequent elections. It is,
however, an insurmountable problem in totalitarian governments where no
democratic opportunity exists to replace government officials.

With democratic freedoms, we exercise constant vigilance as an empowered
citizenry against the encroaching impulses of a governing class
entrusted with monopolistic coercive powers. In democratic societies,
this exercise of vigilance promotes the memes of freedom which are
wanting in totalitarian systems.

To enshrine freedom in society, capitalism and democracy are necessary
but insufficient conditions. In addition, government must be limited.
And to this end, of enshrining freedom, our policy making in national
and foreign affairs must promote liberty against government intrusion.
That is, our policies should be designed to nurture the memes of liberty.

This is why it is so disconcerting to witness, for example, the Unites
States unconditionally changing its policy towards Cuba in a way that:
(1) bestows US legitimacy to an oppressive regime; and (2) abandons
historical US exigency for political freedoms.

It is even more bewildering to witness some Cuban nationals embracing a
change that, by design, accepts, without conditions and indefinitely,
the constraints on freedom imposed on the Cuban people.

Our political advocacy should always be for freedom, and not for
policies that cultivate memes of acquiescence that replace the
presumption of liberty with the presumption of power.

_________________________________________________

**Previously published in the PanAm Post on July 23, 2015.

_________________________________________________


*José Azel is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Cuban and
Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami and the author of the book
"Mañana in Cuba."

Source: Why Societies Don't Rebel against Tyranny - Misceláneas de Cuba
-
http://www.miscelaneasdecuba.net/web/Article/Index/55cbc28a3a682e09b817e6bb#.Vcx5oiaqqko