The Death and Life of State Repression: Understanding Onset, Escalation, Termination, and Recurrence by Christian Davenport and Benjamin J. Appel

IF 0.3 4区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
{"title":"<i>The Death and Life of State Repression: Understanding Onset, Escalation, Termination, and Recurrence</i> by Christian Davenport and Benjamin J. Appel","authors":"","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Myanmar’s decades-long systematic discrimination against its non-Buddhist minorities is inherently repressive. India’s new marginalization of its 200 million Muslims is clearly repressive. Ethiopia’s invasion and war against Tigray counts as state repression. So do Sudan’s past and possible ongoing genocidal acts in Darfur. Equatorial Guinea’s leaving its mainland inhabitants without access to human and economic rights is repressive. When Mozambique excludes its northernmost citizens from schooling and medical care, that is also repressive. Madagascar’s long neglect of its coastal inhabitants, favoring the lighter-skinned inhabitants of the central plateau, is also repressive.State repression is governmental behavior “that is enacted by … designated agents of … authority” who employ coercive power to compel national inhabitants to do what the state (and the leader of the state) wants them to do irrespective of their own individual, or even cultural and group, preferences. When Mao sent Chinese elites (including Xi Jinping) into the countryside to be “re-educated,” and culturally subordinated, he and his security forces were clearly repressing. Likewise, Stalin’s many gulags were repressive, just as Putin’s punishment of Alexandre Navalny and others is repressive and meant to be controlling.This tightly argued book focuses squarely on “government behavior that … historically” has unleashed violence against “large amounts of population” (148–149). The authors are interested in what they call repressive “spells” of reasonable duration. They seek to detail how those “spells”—an odd concept with diverse meanings—begin and are sustained.Large-scale, systematic repression is driven, the authors say, by domestic more than international considerations. Political threats are obvious triggers. When they lead to the onset of repression, the forces of the ongoing repression resemble a slow-moving juggernaut that accelerates relentlessly in a self-reinforcing fashion. The ruling cohort imagines that its interest lies in insulating and digging into earlier positions, “reinforcing the application of government repression even further” (34).Once it is well underway, halting repression is difficult. Indeed, as the authors assert, once a campaign of repression has begun any cancellation or relaxation of the repressive juggernaut is almost impossible absent countervailing internal opposition or concerted international action. Think of extreme cases such as Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, Ne Win’s Burma, or Sukarno’s Indonesia. Juggernauts cannot easily be disturbed (35).The dismantling of South Africa’s apartheid-driven repressive institutions after Nelson Mandela’s release from prison and Africans were allowed to vote obviously marked the end of an era of repression. “Electoral democratization,” this book declares, “reduces repression.” Indeed, democratization obliterates repression, or should, because the availability of choice usually implies that the state has become responsive to peoples’ will, not to the dictates of a repressively inclined despot. The authors are clear: “Electoral democratization has the most powerful impact” on avoiding, modifying, and terminating episodes of repression—even very lengthy ones (150). But the authors are much less clear on how repressed populations have or may overturn their repressors and gain the benefits of democratization. This book is analytic in service of policy prescription. But the path to beneficial outcomes is unlit.Over the universe of this book’s roughly 250 cases, it is evident that states turn repressive when there is no meaningful electoral, judicial, or political democracy. Likewise, when those forms of democracy are modified or removed, repression becomes more likely. The tendency to compel rather than to persuade populations to follow a ruling elite’s policy preferences or its self-interests always lurks within state houses or military barracks. Bullies are everywhere, and their instincts are coercive.This well-argued examination of repression ought to assist historians who seek to enrich the understanding of repression as a phenomenon and examine repressive regimes of the past. It includes only a handful of detailed case studies, however, so historians may have to employ the methods developed in this book on their own cases, retrospectively.","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01986","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Myanmar’s decades-long systematic discrimination against its non-Buddhist minorities is inherently repressive. India’s new marginalization of its 200 million Muslims is clearly repressive. Ethiopia’s invasion and war against Tigray counts as state repression. So do Sudan’s past and possible ongoing genocidal acts in Darfur. Equatorial Guinea’s leaving its mainland inhabitants without access to human and economic rights is repressive. When Mozambique excludes its northernmost citizens from schooling and medical care, that is also repressive. Madagascar’s long neglect of its coastal inhabitants, favoring the lighter-skinned inhabitants of the central plateau, is also repressive.State repression is governmental behavior “that is enacted by … designated agents of … authority” who employ coercive power to compel national inhabitants to do what the state (and the leader of the state) wants them to do irrespective of their own individual, or even cultural and group, preferences. When Mao sent Chinese elites (including Xi Jinping) into the countryside to be “re-educated,” and culturally subordinated, he and his security forces were clearly repressing. Likewise, Stalin’s many gulags were repressive, just as Putin’s punishment of Alexandre Navalny and others is repressive and meant to be controlling.This tightly argued book focuses squarely on “government behavior that … historically” has unleashed violence against “large amounts of population” (148–149). The authors are interested in what they call repressive “spells” of reasonable duration. They seek to detail how those “spells”—an odd concept with diverse meanings—begin and are sustained.Large-scale, systematic repression is driven, the authors say, by domestic more than international considerations. Political threats are obvious triggers. When they lead to the onset of repression, the forces of the ongoing repression resemble a slow-moving juggernaut that accelerates relentlessly in a self-reinforcing fashion. The ruling cohort imagines that its interest lies in insulating and digging into earlier positions, “reinforcing the application of government repression even further” (34).Once it is well underway, halting repression is difficult. Indeed, as the authors assert, once a campaign of repression has begun any cancellation or relaxation of the repressive juggernaut is almost impossible absent countervailing internal opposition or concerted international action. Think of extreme cases such as Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, Ne Win’s Burma, or Sukarno’s Indonesia. Juggernauts cannot easily be disturbed (35).The dismantling of South Africa’s apartheid-driven repressive institutions after Nelson Mandela’s release from prison and Africans were allowed to vote obviously marked the end of an era of repression. “Electoral democratization,” this book declares, “reduces repression.” Indeed, democratization obliterates repression, or should, because the availability of choice usually implies that the state has become responsive to peoples’ will, not to the dictates of a repressively inclined despot. The authors are clear: “Electoral democratization has the most powerful impact” on avoiding, modifying, and terminating episodes of repression—even very lengthy ones (150). But the authors are much less clear on how repressed populations have or may overturn their repressors and gain the benefits of democratization. This book is analytic in service of policy prescription. But the path to beneficial outcomes is unlit.Over the universe of this book’s roughly 250 cases, it is evident that states turn repressive when there is no meaningful electoral, judicial, or political democracy. Likewise, when those forms of democracy are modified or removed, repression becomes more likely. The tendency to compel rather than to persuade populations to follow a ruling elite’s policy preferences or its self-interests always lurks within state houses or military barracks. Bullies are everywhere, and their instincts are coercive.This well-argued examination of repression ought to assist historians who seek to enrich the understanding of repression as a phenomenon and examine repressive regimes of the past. It includes only a handful of detailed case studies, however, so historians may have to employ the methods developed in this book on their own cases, retrospectively.
《国家镇压的死与生:理解开始、升级、终止和复发》作者:克里斯蒂安·达文波特和本杰明·j·阿佩尔
缅甸几十年来对非佛教少数民族的系统性歧视本质上是压制性的。印度对其2亿穆斯林的新边缘化显然是压制性的。埃塞俄比亚对提格雷的入侵和战争被视为国家镇压。苏丹在达尔富尔过去和可能正在进行的种族灭绝行为也是如此。赤道几内亚让其大陆居民无法获得人权和经济权利是一种压迫。当莫桑比克将其最北部的公民排除在教育和医疗服务之外时,这也是一种压迫。马达加斯加长期忽视沿海居民,偏爱中部高原上肤色较浅的居民,这也是一种压迫。国家镇压是“由……权威的……指定代理人”制定的政府行为,这些代理人使用强制权力迫使民族居民做国家(和国家领导人)希望他们做的事情,而不考虑他们自己的个人,甚至文化和群体的偏好。同样,斯大林的许多古拉格都是镇压性的,就像普京对亚历山大·纳瓦尔尼(Alexandre Navalny)等人的惩罚是镇压性的,意在控制。这本争论激烈的书直接聚焦于“历史上”对“大量人口”发动暴力的“政府行为”(148-149)。作者感兴趣的是他们所谓的合理持续时间的压抑“咒语”。他们试图详细描述这些“咒语”——一个有着多种含义的奇怪概念——是如何开始并持续下去的。作者说,大规模、系统的镇压是由国内因素而非国际因素驱动的。政治威胁是明显的诱因。当它们导致镇压的开始,持续镇压的力量就像一个缓慢移动的庞然大物,以一种自我强化的方式无情地加速。统治集团认为他们的利益在于隔离和挖掘早期的立场,“进一步加强政府镇压的应用”(34)。一旦它顺利进行,停止镇压是困难的。事实上,正如作者所断言的那样,一旦镇压运动开始,如果没有国内反对或协调一致的国际行动,几乎不可能取消或放松镇压的主宰。想想极端的例子,比如波尔布特的红色高棉,奈温的缅甸,或者苏加诺的印度尼西亚。神像不容易被干扰(35)。纳尔逊·曼德拉(Nelson Mandela)出狱后,南非种族隔离驱动的镇压机构被拆除,非洲人被允许投票,这显然标志着一个镇压时代的结束。“选举民主化,”这本书宣称,“减少了压制。”事实上,民主化消除了镇压,或者说应该消除镇压,因为选择的可得性通常意味着国家已经开始对人民的意愿作出反应,而不是对有压制倾向的暴君的命令作出反应。作者们很清楚:“选举民主化具有最强大的影响”,可以避免、改变和终止镇压事件——即使是非常漫长的事件(150)。但对于受压迫的民众如何推翻他们的压迫者并获得民主化的好处,作者们就不太清楚了。这本书是为政策处方服务的分析。但通往有益结果的道路却没有照亮。在这本书的大约250个案例中,很明显,当没有有意义的选举、司法或政治民主时,国家就会变得专制。同样,当这些民主形式被修改或取消时,镇压就更有可能发生。强迫(而不是说服)民众遵循统治精英的政策偏好或其自身利益的倾向,总是潜伏在政府大楼或军营里。恶霸无处不在,他们的本能是强制性的。这种对镇压的充分论证应该有助于那些试图丰富对镇压作为一种现象的理解并研究过去镇压政权的历史学家。然而,它只包括少数详细的案例研究,因此历史学家可能不得不在他们自己的案例中使用本书中开发的方法,回顾性地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interdisciplinary History features substantive articles, research notes, review essays, and book reviews relating historical research and work in applied fields-such as economics and demographics. Spanning all geographical areas and periods of history, topics include: - social history - demographic history - psychohistory - political history - family history - economic history - cultural history - technological history
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信