Chris Blattman

Search
Close this search box.

What to do in the face of tyranny? 2 x 4s

Bill Easterly discusses his approach to tyrannic governments and policies with an excellent 2 x 3 box:

I’m drawn to the “talk, not act” box, which I’ve labeled “libertarian”. Advocate passionately for free values, human rights, the freedom of political prisoners, but don’t presume to socially re-engineer someone else’s society in the name of those values.

Given these choices, I suppose I’d end up in the Libertarian box as well. But are these the only choices available?

Where would we put the Gandhis? The Martin Luther King Jrs? I think Bill’s columns are too few in number. “Start or join a peaceful social movement” strikes me as a reasonable alternative to action without overthrowing.

So what we need is a 2 x 4?

“Ah,” you might say, “Gandhi and MLK were not meddling foreigners. As citizens they have different rights and obligations to act.”

To which I say: “Phooey.” Gandhi started his movement as an expatriate civil rights worker in South Africa. And MLK hardly confined his principles and proclamations to Americans.

So why am I blogging instead of joining a social movement? That is a little thing I like to call the “post-tenure project”. But for mostly the right and not the wrong reasons.

5 Responses

  1. Gandhi’s work in South Africa (first under the Natal Colony, then under the Union of South Africa) took place when it, like India, was a British dominion.

    Besides that, aid workers are perceived as representatives of their (militarily and economically superior) host countries, whether they work for the government or not. So the situation is different than being an oppressed-minority migrant lawyer.

  2. Might “Listen/Ignore” be a third dimension? An external observer might do well to also pay close attention to what happens in other countries, and be open to the possibility of revising his/her prior assumptions about (a) the goodness or badness of a regime, and (b) the appropriateness of action/inaction, and voice/silence, having regard to the voices coming from the country being observed.

  3. @Michael,

    I read that more as a filter with which to sort all possible actions based on their effect with respect to the government. Either serving to perpetrate it (directly or indirectly), having no effect, or diminishing it.

    As you say, Ghandi and MLK were actively seeking to change the status quo. I think it’s also helpful to reflect that the actual face of our intervention is tied to who we are and where are abilities lie. MLK was a reverend and not a military general.

    @Chris

    I would suggest a ‘Profiteer’ for one who vocally criticizes and who acts in support of a bad regime.

  4. It depends on how you view “Overthrow” both of the social movements you describe worked to overthrow the government to those who would be better actors. Maybe “Neo-con” is too limiting a term for its box. Agitators? Provocateurs? Or even that mushy term Change Agents?

Why We Fight - Book Cover
Subscribe to Blog