Revolution redux

Last month, when British university students protested against increased tuition fees, and some of the demonstrations turned violent, the commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Stephenson, declared ominously that "the game has changed". He said a variety of violence was showing up at student demonstrations that he had not seen before. He hinted that that radical elements were using the crowd cover to launch a revolutionary politics.

Sir Paul was roundly condemned for his remarks. Nonetheless, he may have been on to something. If radical activists are taking advantage of peaceful protests to engage in direct action, that is pretty much what we should expect.

The violent actions we associate with revolutions are seldom massive events. 'Mobs' rarely tear down palaces. Most people in the crowd are along for the spectacle, and will settle for shouting. But if they enjoy what they see, the actors do what they do best. And once the actors have a supportive audience, they have liberty to implement their script.

Inequality and discontent

In today's world, there are plenty of supportive audiences. Military strategists speak of needing a 'permissive environment' for successful operations, and it is no different for rebels and insurrectionists. For over a half-century, social scientists have studied the relationship between inequality and discontent, and their research has consistently weighed in favour of the view that rising inequality leads to rising discontent. During phases of economic growth, rising incomes can mask this discontent, perhaps by giving people a false sense of prosperity. When growth stops, especially if it stops suddenly, discontent surges.

We know that in many Western societies, especially the United States, inequality has been rising for decades. With the 2008 global financial crisis, a dangerous sequence of events unfolded. Growth stopped sharply. The banks that had precipitated the crisis were bailed out by governments. Workers were laid off as the economy went into recession. Yet, bankers took their bail-out money and paid themselves fat bonuses. Then governments, saddled with the consequent debt, had to cut their spending. And, let's just say these spending cuts aren't hurting banks much.

It's a crude reconstruction, but that's essentially how we got to where we are: the wages for the sins of the rich are being squeezed from the poor. Not surprisingly, they're taking to the streets. And the anger is reminiscent of a revolutionary age. When angry protesters besieged the Prince of Wales' car on the way to the theatre, images of other royals being hustled through angry mobs could not have been far from some minds.

The anger is hardly confined to Britain. Recent months have seen violent demonstrations in France, Italy and Greece, to mention just a few in a lengthening list. Even in the individualist US, recent polls suggest most Americans want to pay the debt by taxing the rich. The anger is everywhere, and it has only just started to find expression.

The Sir Pauls of the world want to respond to this challenge with more authoritarian measures. Revolution and reaction go together. Intensifying this demand will be the fact that in the age of austerity, government cutbacks will reduce police resources. Britain is no different. When you can't use intelligence to find your foe, you use a hammer.

But the truth is that the problem cannot be durably solved by force of arms. Benjamin Disraeli famously said the palace is not safe when the cottage is not happy. Right now, the palace has never had it better. The cottage, meanwhile, is very unhappy. Until that anger is addressed, a new revolutionary age may unfold in the developed Western countries.

John Rapley is president of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute, an independent research think tank affiliated with the University of the West Indies, Mona. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.