I'm not a historian, just a regular person reading a book, so if I get some of the details of the history wrong I apologize. In finishing chapter 7 of Why Nations Fail, I learned about the importance of cotton manufacturing to England around the 1730s, and it's influence on national trade, prosperity, and political power. The people were all fighting for their own interests (traders, merchants, manufacturers, etc). They tried to pass laws to benefit themselves the most politically and there was a struggle back and forth as different groups tried to create monopolies for themselves in different areas of the economy. Technological innovation was stifled at times because innovation was "Creative Destruction" that destroyed the old ways of doing things and shifted economic and political power from the old guard to the new guard, and thus was destabilizing for the current winners.
"Most critically, the emergence and empowerment of diverse interests ranging from the gentry, a class of commercial farmers that had emerged in the Tudor period to manufacturers to Atlantic traders meant that the coalition against absolutism was not only strong but also broad. This coalition was strengthened even more by the formation of the Whig party, which provided an organization to further its interests." It was this empowerment of various groups that led to their joint success.
I especially liked this quote which struck me as relevant and true, something that could be applied to other situations or time periods:
"If all those fighting against the Stuarts had the same interest and the same background, the overthrow of the Stuart Monarchy would have been much more likely to be a replay of the House of Lanchaster vs. the House of York, pitting one group against another narrow set of interests, and ultimately replacing and re-creating the same, or a different form, of extractive institutions. A broad coalition meant that there would be greater demands for the creation of pluralist political institutions. Without some sort of pluralism there would be a danger that one of the diverse interests would usurp power at the expense of the rest."
So, pluralism is defined online as "a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist," which is something I think is completely desirable. If I were to make parallels to today, I might adjust the quote to reflect what I see in America and have it say something like this:
"If all those fighting against the [centralization of power in politics and the economy] had the same interest and the same background, the overthrow of the [current power monopolies] Monarchy would have been much more likely to . . . [pit] one group against another narrow set of interests, and ultimately replacing and re-creating the same, or a different form, of extractive institutions. A broad coalition [would] meant that there would be greater demands for the creation of pluralist political institutions. Without some sort of pluralism there would be a danger that one of the diverse interests would usurp power at the expense of the rest."
The book goes on to discuss that a "crucial factor in making parliament listen to petitions, even when they came from outside of parliament and even from those without a vote" was the fact that they came from such broad groups of varied interests. "This was a crucial factor in preventing attempts by one group from creating a monopoly at the expense of the rest."
We could parallel this to our own government as well by saying that a "crucial factor in making [congress] listen to petitions, even when they [come] from outside of [congress] and even from those without [power]" would be to band together with dissimilar groups to fight for common goals. "This [would be] a crucial factor in preventing attempts by one group from creating a monopoly at the expense of the rest." If we considered this in the light of our current polarization in America between many, many groups competing for power, we can see that we, the people would be more likely to achieve our goals if we were to combine forces and work together towards the future that we want instead of assuming that power to affect change is out of our hands. That's true when we fight individual battles alone; however, it gives weight to the phrase "United We Stand, Divided We Fall."
It was interesting that the success and power of these groups together were much greater when they were united with one another. The book states that "The Glorious Revolution was a momentous event precisely because it was lead by an emboldened broad coalition, and further empowered this coalition . . ." Basically by banding together, they were no longer pitted against one another, and this placed constraints of power upon the different groups so that no one group would end up becoming "too powerful and abusing its power."
The book talked in earlier chapters about "Critical Junctures" or times of the shifting of economic and political power within nations. Sometimes there are events that speed up the occurrence of these critical junctures or shifts of power. Examples of this would be the black plague in Europe or the Industrial Revolution. The book said that these "revolutions" were typically characterized by unrest and turmoil.
One could make an argument that the current pandemic could have a similar effect in that the neccessity of the consumer as a key part of the economic engine, combined with the essential nature of the workforce that keeps the economy moving (essential workers being grocers, shippers, delivery personnel, etc) are actually the backbone of our country's prosperity and should be compensated as such. It makes an interesting comparison to our day now too. The current political and societal unrest could be attributed to a shifting of power back from the political and economic powers that hold them back to the people. If Black Lives Matter, NAACP, LGBTQ+ groups, Religious Freedom Groups, and even NRA groups banded together to support and defend one another's Constitutional Rights, I imagine they would have a greater impact and power to affect law than when they struggle individually to preserve freedoms. Either way, it's interesting to see how history might rhyme.
No comments:
Post a Comment