How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them C8
This is a final look (brief notes) at Ms. Barbara Walters redefines how Civil War looks today, in this new age with social media's blatant regard for entertainment versus facts and logic.
Chapter 8 - Preventing A Civil War
During the 80's, while in college, certain instructors often asked us (students) to identify how and where we felt civil war may occur. Of course during that era we felt it would occur in South Africa, largely because the country's system of apartheid, which forced segregation among government-defined ethnic groups - white, black, mixed race. It had all the risk factors associated with civil war: the country was an anocracy, since the late 80's, the minority government excluded people from power based on race and white citizens saw themselves as the country's rightful heirs. Rhodesia, north of South Africa's found itself in a similar situation, which did result in a civil war. Fortunately, South Africa received a different response in 1986, from countries such as the US, European, Japan which imposed economic sanctions, which resulted in a domino effect and the undoing of many autocratic policies that had been established. The 29-year ban on African National Congress and other liberation parties, the restoration of the press (freedom) and the release of political prisoners, which included Nelson Mandela.
In 1989 South Africa was closer to civil war, than the US finds itself today. The apartheid state that was white South Africans created to suppress Blacks as far more repressive than the pseudo-apartheid state the US had until 1965. Back then, it was illegal for Blacks to marry white people, to establish their own businesses (in white part of town), or access beaches, hospitals and parks established for whites only. South Africa history of anocracy ran deeper than what is found in the US's history; the US has always found itself in the mid-zone.
South Africa has two major groups that consider themselves sons of the soil; both Blacks and whites claimed a historical stake to the land. Here in the US only the Native American (indigenous) make that claim. In South Africa we see the power of leaders in business, politics, opposition to ongoing policies.
Violence often springs from a sense of injustice, inequality, and insecurity - imposing a sense of grievance and fears which are often not met by current system of government. But systems can change, be reformed to be better designed to meet the needs of the people.
Political scientists have spent decades studying the forces behind civil wars and the dynamics of terrorism; these insights can be used not just to anticipate ware but to thwart it.
We know why democracies decline. We know why factions emerge and the conditions under which they thrive. We know the Early warning signs and the Tactics of Violent extremists. Groups like the Proud Boys have a playbook, and there is no reason, US citizens can't have their own book to play by.
Civil Wars are Rare - less than 4 percent of countries meet the conditions for war actually descend into armed conflict. Between 1945 and 1996 over a third of civil wars were followed by a second conflict. Since 2003, with the exception of Libya and Syria conflicts, ever civil war has been a sequel - from a previous war. Ethnic groups, especially those in decline, often fight a second civil war because the conditions that drove the original grievances haven't been addressed or have worsened. Countries like the US and China have only experiences civil ware once, as we've learned from our mistakes.
In 2014 the World Bank had a world conflict map designed, which monitored and tracked the possibility of conflicts and civil war, between 1945 and 2009. Most the countries were able to avoid conflicts that resulted in civil war shared an ability to strengthen the quality of their governance. They doubled down on democracy and moved up the polity scale. Countries that created a more transparent and participatory political environments and limited the power of their executive branch were less susceptible to repeat episodes of violence.
Improving the quality of a country's governance was significantly more important than improving it's economy. When a rich country had a worse government than experts would expect given its prosperity, he found that it faced 'a significant risk of civil war outbreak in later years. So, the US being a wealthier nation it finds itself more likely to experience a civil war when its government becomes less effective and more corrupt, despite the income per-capita not changing.
Until this study was completed we knew anocracy left a country at higher risk of civil war, however, we were not aware exactly why. What is it about anocracies that made them vulnerable? Three features stood out - the Rule of Law (equal and impartial application of legal procedure); voice and accountability (the extent to which citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well a freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media); and government effectiveness (quality of public services). These three features reflect the degree to which a government serves its people and the degree to which its political institutions are strong, legitimate, and accountable. Improvements in governance reduce the risk of war.
The quality of American has been declining since 2016, one of the most obvious reasons is the lack of accountability. Free elections are the central mechanism of accountability. Free elections are the central mechanism of accountability in a democracy, but unlike many other countries, the US lacks an independent and centralized election management system.
An independent and centralized election management system establishes a standard procedure for designing and printing ballots and tabulating votes accurately and securely, untainted by partisan politics. It is able to handle legal disputes without involvement of politicized courts. The right to vote has been increasingly politicized, with Republicans repeatedly stacking the deck against minorities.
Strengthening the Voting Rights Act would go a long way toward eliminating voter suppression and deepening people's trust in the system. Automatic voter registration (AVR) where anyone who interacts with the Department of Motor Vehicles is automatically registered to vote, unless they opt out. It is the single most important and vital thing we can do to assure our government is more participatory, therefore more democratic.
These measures will be challenged by the vision of the white nationalist Christian, however, it could deepen the support for fighting against disenfranchisement of our minorities.
In our country gerrymandering is the practice of redrawing congressional districts to favor one party over the other party, this tends to bring more extreme candidates to the forefront, since getting through primaries requires appealing to more extreme voters in those districts. The US government should increase bipartisanship and help avert conflict, by reexamining the electoral college system, which is a form of gerrymandering on it's own.
The US system is structured to exacerbate the urban-rural divide by giving small states disproportionate power in the Senate.
Since 2000 two presidents have lost the popular vote but won the election after electoral college victories. Switching to a popular vote system that determines who the president is would prevent that, while making it virtually impossible to win without appealing across racial lines. Want to know how to undercut destructive ethnic factions in the US? Make each citizen's vote count equally rather than giving preferential treatment to the white, rural vote.
Reform of this type, is unlikely. The elimination of the electoral college through constitutional amendment would require super-majority support, and this will be hard to achieve, since jettisoning the current system will put the Republican party at a disadvantage. Congress could attempt to resolve another factor in the loss of support of the government, assure they do not serve the special interests over the average citizen. In 2010, the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission instituted the notion that individual donors can contribute unlimited amounts of cash to tilt the scale of politics in favor of candidates aligned with their own interests rather than the best interests of the country.
All of these electoral problems damage the perceived legitimacy of the government, weakening the American democracy, and allowing the government to worsen. All of this is moving us closer to the anocracy zone. Today, many Americans are distrustful of their government, believing that their democratic institutions often don't serve the people's interests.
Let's not abandon it, but improve upon it. Reform the government to make it more transparent, more accountable to the voters and equitable and inclusive to all of it's citizenship. Stop manipulating the institutions to serve a narrower group of citizens or corporate interests. Put this ship into reverse, allowing the amplification of the citizenry voices, improving upon public services, strengthening accountability and ending corruption. Everyone should be allowed to vote and everyone's vote should count equally - all of this would instill trust in our government, as it is reflective it is serving us and not the opposite.
Educating the citizenry about the key levers of power in our democracy and ways in which they can be manipulated. So many now have become complacent and are not aware of the basics on what it takes, who has it, who doesn't, why that is, what forms it takes, and what it is exactly, and how it is implemented and enacted.
Our citizenry isn't even educated enough to list the three branches of government, reflecting a need to re-introduce the teaching of civics, at all levels of education. It teaches children how our government works, its values, habits and the norms set by our society, allowing it to maintain a smooth running population and meeting their needs.
Most people aren't aware we are on a path of civil war until the violence is a feature of everyday life. Leaders have an incentive to keep the average citizen distracted from the work of the militias, allowing them to operate by reshaping life gradually, protecting their larger aims against possible countermeasures. This is a historical pattern.
Our own psychological biases often prevent us from recognizing internal threats, as it's easier to blame outsiders rather than our neighbors. Law enforcement officials are more likely to minimize the danger posed by individuals living in communities they know - most often white communities.
We often regard foreign terrorists as part of a larger movement while domestic terrorism is thought of as rare and isolated. There is no law in the US that criminalizes domestic terrorism, as most Americans don't believe them to be a real threat. Our elected representatives have not been eager to discuss domestic terror issues for political reasons, they either actively benefit from support of extremists or worry about the political cost of turning on them. This collective blindness has placed in a precarious position, as a country, we are more prepared to counter foreign enemies than home-ruled militia-types. To avert civil war, we must devote the same resources to finding and neutralizing homegrown combatants as we do to foreign ones.
In 2007 a team of Homeland Security staff working on right-wing extremists discovered websites with bomb-making manuals, weapons training, and hundreds of militia recruitment videos (YouTube). Our U.S. military veterans are especially vulnerable to recruitment, as well as our law enforcement officials. Law enforcement contacts often have information, intelligence and assist white supremacists to avoid detection.
Ex-military and those in law enforcement offer a ready-made band of individuals with the training and experience to be effective soldiers. Stopping this cancer must be a priority. The decline in militias after the Oklahoma City bombing was in large part the result of an aggressive counter-terrorism strategy supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
What should America's response look like? If we know what terrorists are after, and how they will pursue their goals, we have the opportunity to formulate our own counter-strategy (chess), using history and other countries' strategies. There are common tactics to de-stabilize democracies, as well as field-tested methods of undermining, and disabling their efforts.
The best way to 'bust' a budding insurgency is to reform a degraded government by bolstering the rule of law, give all citizens equal access to the vote, and improve the quality of government services. Remedy the grievances and fix problems of governance that create the conditions extremists exploit. If we don't change our present course of action - danger looms.
The government must undo the fifty years of declining social services, invest in safety nets and human capital across racial and religious sectors, prioritizing high-quality early education, universal health-care and a higher minimum-wage.
Most governments in our predicament institute reforms necessary to avoid war and most often it is successful. Robert A. Johnson, President of the Institute for New Economic Thinking stated "if America put more money and energy into public school systems, parks and recreation, the arts, and healthcare", it could calm the citizenry. Governments that work to show they're effective receive an added benefit, by making it harder for extremists to radicalize moderates, they also undercut their abilities to step in and compete with the state to offer services. Today, we could reform existing immigration legislation, allowing path to citizenry, thereby reducing the number of illegal immigrants. Provide affordable housing and the opportunity to attend college and free access to drug addiction. At the same time the government must step up the policies toward "Hate" and punish domestic terrorism, carefully, without weakening support toward legitimate grievances.
Governments can also undermine extremists attempts to intimidate, as it works only because the local population doesn't believe that the government can take care of them or protect them from violence. To reestablish people's trust the best way is thru the legitimacy of government, but ensuring adequate laws enforcement and justice. This assures the government is capable of protecting the population and identifying and punishing the perpetrators of crimes this discourages citizens from seeking protection from the extremists.
In the West, this would differ, as rural citizens aren't fond of the federal government in their business; it's more advisable to use local security, allowing the building of trust and acceptance of government. Local citizens will gravitate to the group they believe is more likely to deliver security and success. Governments can undercut support for extremists by reducing grievances, providing benefits for all citizens, and supplying hard evidence that playing within the system is more fruitful than defecting. Our government has the resources to outbid any insurgent group. If people feel that the government is on their side, they won't need the insurgents. The delivering of basic service can help the US break out of the cycle of loss of hope and loss of faith in government.
We live in deeply partisan times, and it is common to hear polarization described as the root of our problems. Liberals have become more liberal, conservatives have become more conservative, and there is little chance of the two sides meeting in the middle. Polarization, many pundits have argued, is tearing America apart. However, this does not bring us closer to civil war, what does is fictionalization - when citizens form groups based on ethnic, religious, or geographic distinctions an a country's political party, cutting out rivals and enacting policies that primarily benefit them and their constituents.
We must take away the social media bullhorn and turn down the volume on bullies, conspiracy theorists, bots, trolls, disinformation machines, hate-mongers, and enemies of democracy. Nothing accelerates factionalism more than social media. The answer to all the questions on how to contain the situation is to take the social media bullhorn, thus lowering the volume on bullies, conspiracy theorists, bots, trolls, disinformation machines, hate mongers and those attempting to dismantle democracy. The anger in American society would decrease almost immediately. As proved when the former president was unable to access his social media accounts. Curbing the dissemination of hate and disinformation would greatly reduce the risk of civil war.
A central driver to factionalism has always resided with conspiracy theories. If you want to get other into action just give them a target - 'others', and how the ultimate design of the situation is to take what is yours and given to the 'others'.
Online platforms have given power to the theorists who believe in conspiracies such as Alex Jones, who made himself rich, selling the stories he Never believed himself. As Voltaire said " Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Conspiracies have always been around, but never quite as amplified as most recently with Q-anon, a fringe movement claiming that a secret cabal of prominent pedophilia Democrats are plotting to take down Trump. And along with this group are the entertainment/reality fans of Trump amplifying the lies about the 2020 election. It doesn't have to stay this way. The US is where social media began and it can reel in the 'machine'; it is home to five of the major companies that control and share the information input into it.
The US has regulated many other sectors in society and this one sector that is in dire need of 'regulation', the impact would be felt globally. Far-right movements are present across the world, lately, and this could tamper down their efforts to dismantle democracy. It would minimize factionalism by inhibiting foreign involvement; as foreign governments consistently attempt to influence civil war and far-right outcome in other countries.
Today a country can be destabilized through social-media content. In 2013-2018 the countries Russia, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia instigated over fifty-three campaigns against the US, by denigrating it's politicians with false stories about them, their activities/constituents and family members.
Social media has created the perfect conditions for factionalism to arise, as it allows anyone/thing (person/bot/business) to sow distrust and division. A site entitled 'Blacktivist' was created to invite Black citizens to their site, selling merchandise with its logo; unbeknownst to many, the site was linked to the Kremlin. It has been setup to capture the movements of the citizenry involved with the Black Lives Matter movement..
The threat is serious as these autocratic governments are now hiring mercenaries to come to the US to fight on US soil. American is a technological and military giant but the internet and social media has left us vulnerable to attack. In the past it was leaflets dropped from planes distributing 'propaganda' then doctored movies, and videos. Today all it takes is a post on a social media site, repeated or shared a few times for it to spread and watch factionalism spread.
Here in the US we have allowed money and extremism to infiltrate our politics. We can undo the damage, if we act NOW. We must claim back and mediate our public discourse, moving us away from self-segregating predatory factionalism, restoring hope into our society, such as the group that began "Civic Saturdays".
The group can be found in over 30 cities. Instead of a church service, the service is all about the 'lessons of government', how it is run and how important the citizenry's voice is - voting gets things done. Another group is EmbraceRace which was founded by parents who had bi-racial children and wanted help other parents embrace and appreciate different races and cultures.
Activism at the local level was used during the Civil Rights Movements (Black, Chicano, Student & Women's) and since against us (quietly), for the last 30 years, it's time to gain it back and use it 'for' us, once again - the 'average person' citizen in the United States.