Kaushik Basu writes in Project Syndicate
In an era of democratic erosion, we must study the tactics that enable authoritarians like Vladimir Putin to stay in power.
Only if we want to erode democracy. If we want to expand it we must study the tactics of leaders like Narendra Modi who has prevented Dynasticism from eroding democracy in India.
By understanding why some tyrants endure while others succumb to popular uprisings, we can design better laws and constitutions to ensure rulers cannot hold on to power against their people's will.
Nonsense! Tyrants endure by killing those who might topple them. Understanding this won't help us design shit.
NEW YORK – A specter is haunting Russia – the specter of dissent.
No. The specter haunting Russia is that the mobilization might fail. Ukraine might get the upper hand and drive out Putin's demoralized soldiers. Dissent does not matter. It is easy to kill dissenters. Military defeat does matter. Troops might mutiny as morale collapses. That's what did for the Tzar.
Anti-draft protests have broken out in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other Russian cities, large and small.
Soldiers would prefer shooting unarmed protestors to having to go fight guys who shoot back in Ukraine.
Thousands of young men are fleeing the country. And more than 2,000 Russians have been arrested after protesting against President Vladimir Putin’s attempt to mobilize 300,000 reservists to fight his war against Ukraine.
Putin can arrest, or even shoot, as many of his own people as he likes- so long as they don't start shooting back. The problem in Ukraine is that the Ukrainians are shooting back very successfully.
It is too early to speculate about whether the current civil unrest will lead to Putin’s ouster.
No. One can speculate early or late or after the event.
If he is indeed deposed, it would be a blessing for the people of Ukraine and for billions of people worldwide suffering the economic fallout of his war.
Only if he is replaced by something better. The fall of the Tzar was bad for Ukrainians.
But among the main beneficiaries would be ordinary Russians whose lives and prospects have been diminished under his corrupt, authoritarian regime.
Russians were left worse off by Gorbachev's fall. Things improved when Putin came in. We don't know if a post-Putin Russia will be presided over by a Yeltsin or a....shit. I can't think of a good Russian leader. Putin came closest.
Do Russians want to oust Putin and restore democracy? If you ask people familiar with Russia, they will most likely say that most of the population still supports him. I have my doubts. Tyrants always appear to have more support than they do until they are gone, because feigning support is a survival strategy.
This is also true of the Indian Congress Party and the dynasty it serves- even when out of power. Stupidity or sycophancy is how stupid sycophants survive- if only as stupid sycophants.
We saw this in Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt before both were overthrown in 2011.
But the Army is back in power in Egypt and the 2022 Referendum in Tunisia, which only had 30 percent participation, has given the President dictatorial powers. Basu's argument cuts both ways. Supporting a 'revolution' may be a 'survival strategy'.
During the height of McCarthyism in the United States in the early 1950s, more people mimicked support for Senator Joseph McCarthy’s oppressive views than actually supported them.
Very true. The man was Catholic.
Even so, authoritarian rulers have a knack for staying in power despite their brutality.
Rulers have a knack for staying in power because if you don't got not power you aint ruling shit.
In the summer of 2020, a popular uprising threatened to end the oppressive reign of Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko, but he survived. Myanmar’s military regime, one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships, has outlasted multiple attempts at democratization.
By shooting people. The problem begins only when they shoot back.
In an era of democratic backsliding, it behooves us to comprehend the forces that entrench authoritarian regimes.
Shooting people. Fuck is so difficult to comprehend about that?
By better understanding why some tyrants endure while others succumb to popular uprisings, we could design better laws and constitutions
like the ones which were just junked in Tunisia? What good would that do?
that ensure leaders cannot hold on to power against their people’s will.
History shows not a single example of any such thing. No constitution has magical powers.
After all, constitutional tweaks have strengthened the foundations of democracy in the past.
No. Democracies and autocracies and imaginary polities may tweak the constitution or freak over prostitution and babble about 'foundations' but this changes nothing. What strengthens a regime is popular support based on good governance, a buoyant economy or good leadership under adverse circumstances. Modi understand this. The party ruling India when Basu was Chief Economic Advisor still doesn't get this.
For example, the Twenty-Second Amendment to the US Constitution limits presidents to two terms,
It could be repealed. It was only brought in because FDR had got 4 terms. The problem remains that Presidents can pack the bench more and more, the longer they hold office
thus limiting the authoritarian temptation one sees in countries like China, where President Xi Jinping will seek – and almost certainly gain – an unprecedented third term this month.
Limiting terms was what was unprecedented in China. Mao's rule terminated only with his death. Deng did resign but his Southern Tour meant he remained the de facto leader of his country till his death. Xi's successes have raised him to the level of a Deng, if not yet a Mao.
What explains the longevity of dictators like Lukashenko and Putin?
The ability and willingness to kill opponents.
In a recent paper, I developed an allegory I call the Incarceration Game
which is stupid shit.
Consider the following
Suppose an individual, call him person 1, has to choose one action from a set X of available actions.
We can't choose from 'available actions' because they are unknown. We can only chose from 'actions expected to be implementable'. I can chose to expect to watch Netflix over Disney when I click a button on my remote control. But I can't actually watch Netflix because they have terminated my contract because payment was declined by my Bank. Thankfully, my Disney subscription is still active.
Each action x ∈ X is denoted by a pair, (x1, x2), where x1denotes the payoff earned by individual 1,
this payoff is unknowable save at 'the end of Time'.
that is, the person making the choice, and x2 is the payoff earned by the bystander.
But what of the payoff earned or lost by the bystander's bystander?
The bystander may be the future generation—henceforth, she. She cannot influence person 1’s choice but is affected by it.
How do we know? People are in fact affected by considerations relating to those yet unborn. Most Wills and Trust instruments reveal that the possible circumstances of remote descendants have very significant effects on economic choices made here and now. Only 'expectations' matter, and they are 'counter-factual' in that they aren't actual outcomes.
Let us denote the choice that person 1 makes if he is completely selfish by x∗∈ X.
But that choice is unknowable because we have no idea what the true interests of a self really is. Stupid selfishness which leads to bad outcomes is not in one's self-interest. What is? We can only guess.
Then, by definition, x∗1≥x1, for all x ∈ X .Now suppose person 1 becomes moral, in the sense that he treats each unit of payoff earned by 2 as equivalent to δ units earned by himself, where 1 ≥ δ>0.
This is an arbitrary stipulation. We may equally say 'it is immoral to treat another person's payoff as if it were one's own. That way lies paternalism and the creation of the mind-forged manacles of mendicancy and a dependency culture. True morality promotes autonomy for all.'
Let z∗∈ X, be the choice he makes once he becomes moral. It is obvious that in this kind of anon-strategic environment, the person making the choice becoming moral is never bad for the bystander.
Only by arbitrary stipulation. I could as easily say 'by Basu's argument, it is obvious that he eats dogs turds because the condition for letting z∗∈ X can be nothing else- unless a more degrading type of nourishment is available for Basu and his ilk.
That is, z∗2≥ x∗2.To see this, suppose that the above inequality does not hold.
In which case Basu does not eat dog turds. But this involves a contradiction since, by stipulation he eats nothing else. This is the reason all kinds of Socioproctologists urge us to let Basus scour the streets eagerly devouring any dog turds they can find. This is the only way we can show empathy to future generations of students of this type of worthless shite.
That is,x∗2> z∗2(1)The fact that person 1, when selfish, chose x∗, implies x∗1≥ z∗1. But this, coupled with (1), impliesx∗1+ δx∗2> z∗1+ δz∗2.But this is impossible since, when he is moral, he chooses z∗. The contradiction proves that the person making the choice becoming moral is always desirable (or, more correctly, is more desirable or the same) for the bystander or the future generation. This is the reason why all kind and environmentally-conscious people, like Greta Thunberg, urge us to have empathy for the future generations.
Greta supported the Farmer's agitation in India. She has done her bit for the destruction of a fragile eco-system.
to show how abstruse philosophical reasoning can illuminate the shadowy machinations and oppressive tactics that help authoritarian rulers stay in power.
only to the extent that it can prove Basu eats dog turds though, no doubt, there is scant documentary evidence for this. By contrast, no 'shadowy machinations' are involved when people are being shot or beaten to death or carted off to concentration camps.
The Incarceration Game boils down to a simple thought experiment. In a country with a population of 100 adults, every person opposes the leader.
If this is common knowledge, it is also common knowledge that the country is shit. The leader will always be opposed but obeyed. Better the Devil you know...
If even ten citizens take to the streets, the leader will be deposed,
even if ninety support him? What is to prevent them also taking to the streets to demonstrate this? After all, if it is common knowledge, that demonstration by ten people can depose the leader, it follows that some new leader with the same quality may arise. Expectations regarding this can cause a larger counter-demonstration. But, if this too is common knowledge, then ten citizens won't take to the streets because the opportunity cost of getting rid of the leader may be too high. The situation is not like 'Josephine's kingdom'- where there is some external force which enforces the rules- because the choice is between this leader, some other who might be worse, and anarchy.
The plain fact is that a country where everybody is against the leader is a shitty country. The people are either disloyal and heteronomous or lazy and useless. They are no more capable of being political agents than sheep being rounded up by a sheep dog.
but the leader can incarcerate up to ten dissenters.
Why incarcerate when you can kill?
So, if fewer than ten people protest, there is a high probability that they will be arrested. But if every citizen is willing to protest, the likelihood of being caught drops so much that people are no longer afraid to dissent, and the leader does not stand a chance.
Very true. If a sufficient percentage of peeps refused to pay their taxes or their utility bills or started copulating in the streets, then Bourgeois Capitalism would collapse! Wake up sheeple! We have the power to topple the system!
As a matter of fact, a section of the population does not pay any tax, or utility bills and does fornicate and take drugs in the open. But they are shunned or confined to an ungovernable margin where, soon enough, they start knifing and raping and robbing each other.
For any coordination game, there is always a discoordination game. Why bother with 'incarceration' when self-segregation or 'separating equilibria based on costly signals' will occur spontaneously?
But a shrewd and ruthless ruler would divide the population into ten separate groups: opposition leaders, newspaper editors, trade union officials, and so on.
Basu has not noticed that these groups arise spontaneously. But they tend to overlap. An opposition leader may also work for a Trade Union while editing a magazine. That was certainly the case in India.
Suppose the leader announces that he will arrest only opposition leaders who are caught joining the uprising.
He would be laughed at. It is stupid to carefully preserve the life of your rivals while letting the 'uprising' be dealt with by some counter-uprising as blood flows in the streets.
If the members of that group stay home,
they are not leaders
then he will target protesting newspaper editors, and so on, until he incarcerates ten protesters or the revolt ends.
Fuck is wrong with Basu? Does he not get that tyrants don't like 'revolts' though they may manufacture some such thing so as to go ahead with a genocide for which they have already prepared and budgeted?
It is hilarious to think of a Hitler or a Stalin announcing rules which have the effect of creating an immunity for the vast majority to run riot. Why not say 'only invading soldiers over six feet in height will be shot by our army. They should stay at home. However if no tall soldiers appear, we will shoot those who are shorter than 5 foot six inches. They too should stay at home. Finally, if no tall or short soldiers invade, we will kill all and only the medium height soldiers. Have a nice day.'
Basu may be surprised to learn that this is not the military doctrine of any Army. They all say, 'we will shoot all and every fucking invader regardless of height or weight or gender or age. Don't fucking invade. We will slaughter you.'
It is not difficult to guess what would happen. The opposition leaders will not join the protest, because they are sure to be arrested.
No. They are sure to join the protest because if they don't they will stop being leaders. Some new guy takes over. He may be worse than the old guy. Instead of threatening his rivals with arrest he may cut off their goolies.
At that point, the newspaper editors will not join, either, because they now know for certain that they will be arrested if they do.
Who will read a newspaper edited by a coward? If he is scared of arrest, he will shit himself if threatened by a gangster or just anybody with a knife.
With the opposition leaders and newspaper editors staying off the streets, trade union leaders will do the same. This inexorable process of backward induction will ensure that no one feels safe protesting. And the ruler will portray the absence of protest as a sign of popular support.
This is crazy shit. Backward induction only applies if the base case is compossible. A dictator who gives an immunity to protest to any class of the population won't last for a single day ergo there is no dictator. People are protesting for no good reason. They are not engaged in politics. They are victims of a mass delusion. Instead of 'down with Putin', they may as well be shouting 'down with asteroids'.
The point of this hypothetical exercise is to highlight the methods that allow authoritarian rulers to repress political dissent.
But this is not the method actually used. Authoritarian rulers do establish 'separating equilibria' based on costly signals re. loyalty and they distribute favors on that basis. They also shoot first and ask questions later if any 'hooliganism' breaks out. It is sad that some simple folk die when this happens but all is the fault of the Homosexual Jewish Free Masons in Wall Street and Hollywood.
Those of us who care about protecting democratic norms must develop constitutional mechanisms that prevent authoritarians from pursuing such tactics in the real world.
By eating dog turds. Only if your cognitive functioning has been totally degraded by devouring dog turds could you let z∗∈ X
To block their rise, we must first understand the games they play.
Fuck has Basu ever blocked? We easily understand that he is a cretin. Amartya Sen was his PhD supervisor. Bengalis need to be able to run away from Bengal. If they can do so playing at game theory, good luck to them. What is sad is that they chose to remain ignorant of their own Hindu teachings on ethics while mangling those of the West.
In a recent paper Basu says
I would argue that, for now, hope has to lie in the kind of suggestion put forward by Putnam (2005, p. 24), drawing on the work of Emmanuel Levinas:
who denied that the Palestinians could be the alterity of the Jew and thus the latter had no ethical obligation to the former.
But this is just Mussar ethics founded upon the notion that there is a 'Chosen People'. By contrast, the Indian tradition has a notion of 'paratman parivartana'- swopping selves or 'antidosis'- such that a superior choice menu is discovered.
“For Levinas,the irreducible foundation of ethics is my immediate recognition, when confronted with a suffering fellow human being, that I have an obligation to do something.
Because that is what the Jewish Religion teaches. Indeed, it is G*D's command! Nobody can deny that this is a splendid Religion though, obviously, there were periods when it did stupid shit same as every other such grouping.
[Even if I cannot actually help,] not to feel the obligation to help the sufferer at all, not to recognize that if I can, I must help … is not to be ethical.”
In which case Putnam and Basu- like Levinas- were unethical. They didn't understand that the only way Professors like themselves can truly help the suffering is by scouring the streets for dog poo and eagerly devouring the same. I'm not saying this would end my misery, but the spectacle would certainly lift my spirits. Also it would reduce the dead weight loss to society incurred when young peeps waste their time studying obvious shite.
Note that Putnam is not contradicting the dictum ‘ought implies can’.
He is contradicting the dictum 'judge not, lest ye be judged'.
He is not asserting you ought to help someone whom you cannot help, but you ought to feel the obligation to help.
and the obligation to feel you have an utterly useless obligation just by arbitrary stipulation. But this means, even if Basu is unable to devour dog turds, he is obliged to yearn to do nothing else.
Building on this, it may be argued that, even if a good outcome is beyond current reach, we must nurture and keep alive what may be called the ‘moral intention,’ which is the intention to achieve the good eventually.
Very true. We must say our prayers and do puja to Kali Ma. Alternatively, like Basu, we should yearn to devour dog turds.
If the moral intention is deadened, and we end up in a morally-bad outcome, we would treat this as a fait accompli and do nothing.
Basu is doing nothing to clear my street of dog turds. This is a morally-bad outcome. We can't treat this as a fait accompli. Assuming Basu has a hundred students, even if just ten of them force him to eat dog turds, they will all get their PhDs from Institute of Socioproctology for modest fee of $ 9.99. Mind it kindly.
It is our moral intention that makes us want to step beyond the game under consideration,
but, if we have any common sense, we will see that there is no properly specified game whatsoever. If payoffs are unknown and radical Knightian Uncertainty prevails there can only be regret minimizing strategies of various types. But they need to be robust with respect to the actual fitness landscape which is unknowable.
and think of how we may alter our behavior, such as by adopting deontological ethics
But consequentialism is deontic. We have a duty to regard consequences. Robustness is a different matter. Protocol bound, buck stopped, decisions are robust but there is a consequentialist reason why we prefer them in justiciable matters. Rawls was as stupid as shit. He didn't know about Hohfeldian immunities and was too stupid to understand that we all live behind a veil of ignorance because tomorrow we might be hit by a bus and our Insurance provider may have gone bust.
or altering the rules of the game by imposing taxes and fines on players
If such taxes and fines don't yield public goods in an obvious manner, there will be either exit or despotism.
or to act selfish even if one is not selfish, in strategic contexts like the Greta’s Dilemma game.
Greta was certainly selfish to support the Farmer's agitation. Jumping on bandwagons- or studying worthless shite at Uni- is selfish except in so far as it is so fucking stupid as not to be even in a rational sociopath's self-interest.
The upshot is: there is no easy getting away from the core message of Greta’s Dilemma.
Yes there is. Just say 'Basu is as stupid as shit. He is crap at Game theory.'
When we see a group behaving badly we must not assume that the outcome reflects what the individuals in the group desire.
Yes we must, if the matter is justiciable. That's why the Capitol Hill rioters must be sent to jail even if they insist they were only trying to rescue Nancy Pelosi from the lizard people of Planet X.
Most people do not allow the thought that a group of leaders may not want to do what leaders as a collective often end up doing.
Most people don't allow their kids to study stupid shite at Uni unless they know their kids are as stupid as shit and thus having a sheepskin in stupid shite will make them feel better about themselves or, at the least, distract them from incessant masturbation.
They may be in a trap the same way that Havel (1986) conjectured that the leaders of a post-totalitarian state may have no exit route.
Death. That's everybody's exit route.
This is indeed a dilemma that Greta Thunberg, with her good moral intention,
scolding people is good.
has to be aware of. Individuals being concerned about future generations
will want to kill of those whose progeny, they think, will be nasty. This way lies jihad, or eugenics or some such shite. If Man affects the environment, you have to ensure that only the right types of humans have progeny.
not only may not help those generations, but may actually end up hurting them.
Not unless we kill them first.
Strategic environments, the heart of game theory and what reality is mostly about, throws up unexpected challenges.
i.e. ignores Knightian Uncertainty which militates for robust, regret minimizing strategies. Basu & Co have been wasting their time.
No comments:
Post a Comment