Persistent poverty is a political problem.
It is the result of decades of irresponsible regulation, spending, and legislation which have imposed unacceptable costs on the majority of developing societies while conferring enormous rents on the people who have access to power.
Everywhere we go in the developing world, we see convoluted legal systems, arbitrary and manifestly unjust allocations of rights, and a middle class that is totally dependent on the state for its high living standards. This dependency and the enormous gap between the haves and the have nots creates pervasive fear of change and a systemic inability to reform, even in the face of hard economic facts.
The result is that most of the world’s poor “opt out” of the decaying formal legal structure, falling back on alternate forms of self-governance that can protect their assets and their lives. The central government’s power to enact policy often extends little beyond the center of the capital city, although as gate keeper to the outside world and the owner of many guns, it can play an incredibly disruptive role in the lives of its citizens.
The governments of the world are increasingly at odds with the independent structures that have sprung up around them. Violent clashes with police aside, proof of this adversarial relationship comes from the fact that the people who occupy these new spaces go by all sorts of dirty names in the press. The proletariat, informals, tax evaders, drug users, punks, anarchists, hustlers, squatters, criminals, illegal immigrants, smugglers, narco-terrorists, and insurgents are all part of the counterstate array.
The complexity, diversity, and extent of these alternative societies should not be underestimated. Even in countries with apparently liberal political systems, these extralegal forces often represent the majority, not some fringe of radicals and nonconformists. They represent the three quarters of the world that remains “unglobalized” in the sense that their political, social, and economic structures are unrecognized and even deliberately excluded by the global elite.
It should be noted that their attempts at nonparticipation in the formal economies of their countries does not necessarily signify resistance to globalization. In fact, they often work to bypass state institutions that are themselves obstacles to integration and commerce. Most of these people just want what everyone in the developed world wants: to work, to learn, and to prosper, to exert some control over their lives, and to provide more for their children than they were afforded.
With that said, the environment of inequality and exclusion can foster radical and violent ideologies that cut across national borders and attack the state system at its weakest points. It is important to remember that while the leaders may have a clear vision of their political objectives, the cannon fodder does not. The rank-and-file of the revolution is not likely to have read Marx.
As Claude Bowers noted in June 1945,
"The danger of communism comes from the misery of the masses, and where governments show no disposition to alleviate the economic condition, or even to hold forth hope of a higher standard of living. I venture to say that not one “communist” in ten knows what communism is. He understands it is something extremely opposite to the system under which he suffers and he joins the communists as a protest striking blindly and stupidly. He is convinced that nothing could be worse than his present state. Here again, as all through history, we encounter the stupidity of the over-privileged in refusing to concede anything to the man bellow."
The “rank and file” extralegals of the world are not the enemies of civilization, they are the enemies of their particular oppressors. It would be a shame if they destroyed the one to get at the other. We have already seen the consequences of ignoring their plight.
The crisis of state legitimacy has reached proportions that many in the developed world can scarcely imagine. We wring our hands about the handful of “failed” states, places where government has utterly collapsed or where war has reshuffled communities so many times that people are in a permanent state of flight. We are right to be concerned with these places, but the much larger problem is that all but a handful of states in the world are failed or failing if we apply any sort of objective standards to their performance.
The essence of democracy is not in written constitutions or ballot boxes, and it is not unique to western culture. It has to do with the idea that the just government must conform to the people, not the other way around.
The rise of economic informality shows how most people have voted with their feet against the regimes that profess to "represent" them.
