you're reading...
Political Analysis, products, Psychological Analysis, US

A Political Risk Analysis: (In Brief) An Historical Analysis On The Conditions of Revolutionary-Probabilities Within The Western Democracies (the vulnerable and the invulnerable)

My Recent Lecture at Gramscian Institute For Global Studies.

To appreciate the revolutionary-inclinations of the western democracies is to appreciate the concept and practise of ‘democracy’; the government of the few on many. It is thus, these few who define and who can bring the revolution at the top, or below. The western democracies are coup de grace, one establishment section replacing another, as the citizens/masses are largely passive participants in their governmental affairs. This is the critical focal point of our analysis here: it is the elites within the ‘democracies’ that can define and originate change, and never the masses, as it is across more popular democratic societies.

Today, western world, and democracies, are battling the voices for changes. This is not something new across this region, nor is it something quietly divorced from the behavioural patterns of the past. To appreciate, not the nature nor the causes (as these are well-known and of similar characteristics), but, the final products or effects of these new radical revolutionary cries and activities, one needs to appreciate the socio-cultural and political histories of this region, in terms of its constituents, as independent entities and focus of analysis.

What does this mean?

It means, we are going to briefly examine the chances or the absence, of such, for a revolution to be successful within each state, in accordance to it’s past behavioural histories with such particular socio-political trends, the centre of origins and the final ends.

Lets begin with the Old World of Europe.

1. Germany:

The chances of a revolution are positive-probability. However, one needs to understand that, this behavioural political action has never really taken place in such a state, and only ‘revolutionary behaviours’ that can be accounted can be said to have come from the top, within the ruling elites/the establishment, not the masses; for example, Bismarck towards the Unification and Hitler’s Third Reich. The masses revolutionary attempts failed, and this was not really the ”people revolutionary attempts”, of the Red Brigades of Baader Meinhof.

Thus, in Germany, one might state correctly that the chances of a revolution is 35-45 per cent to succeed, if originated from the masses, with the masses support, and greater percentage probability of 90-100 if it comes from within the establishment, that from the top and within the ruling class.

2. France:

No need to go on with this, as we all know the background and the world-renown French passion of the masses, who have been at the centre of French politics and histories; from pre-France-Statehood, to the monarchs, revolutions of the Directory, to the crisis of pre-war, to even present as an headache for the European Politics within the EU.

In short, in France, the probabilities of a people’s Revolutionary success are Very High: 80-100.

3. The Soft Under-Belly of Europe/The Mediterranean States:

In Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal, the overall assessment one can deduce from the past facts is that, conditions vary greatly and dependent mostly on the environmental characteristics of the times; the depth and impacts of the grievances, and even if good, it tends to be ”tribal”, in a sense, one faction dominating the ‘people’s revolutions’ not a nation en mass .

In short, the chances for revolutions within these states need to be re-examined within the contemporary and immediate conditions and environment, and not based on the historical analysis as the critical key/indicator to end-product.

However, one might not that there is no real ‘passion’ for ‘struggles’, or should say ‘long struggles’ within these states, as the masses, and the vanguard young, tend to prefer ‘period of tranquillity and romances’ to the ‘hardships of revolutionary life’.

4. The Northern States:

Not a chance. These are more inclined towards tranquillity periods than the Latin people of the South. These by nature tend to be more peace-loving, pacifist states/public.

The North, prefer diplomacy than conflict. Internal negotiations than civil fightings. The casing point, the recent terrible Norway’s Terror of Utoya, and the ‘quiet state of meditation’ of the entire state in understanding the causes of such terror, not in jumping into gung-ho reactionary measures, as compared to the ‘minor activities’ in Britain, recently.

5. The United States:

I will just finish with this final state assessment.

In the United States, the probability of revolutionary challenges and success are Moderately High.

This means that, as a result of the traditions of the socio-political structures and philosophies of the US, the people have always believed strongly that they are the final arbitrators of their own national legal frameworks, and if they feel it is threatened and they are unable to peacefully remedy the problems, that remove the causes of ‘tyrannical behaviours’, they will revolt on mass, and with success. The masses of US, are easily cohesive body. Also, as the results of many factions, to use the founding fathers terminology (James Madison), the US is more vulnerable to revolutionary challenges from within, if conditions are perfect.

To take an example of an inherent internal factional problem, one that can resurfaced any time, when conditions are tangible and receptive, is the South-North Problem which is even present to date, just have a look at the successes of the Tea-Party of US in rallying the South, and not being very successful in the North.

Anywhere, I forgot Britain.

6. The British Isles:

Simple, the masses chances of revolutionary success are NIL, unless the British Isles divides back into three ‘principalities’ of Scotland, Wales and England, then, any one of revolutionary masses from within each respective states, can operate with success, as it can be sure to be able to get either full and open assistance from any one of the neighbouring states, from moral, to physical and so forth.

The British Isles, are a place where, especially as union, only the Top, The Elites within the Ruling Establishment, can bring down existing order for their own, sort of coup de etat, as it has been throughout it historical ”revolutions”, Kings against Kings, Barons against Kings, etc, even Cromwell and ”the Legend of King Arthur” were elite inspired ”revolutions”. There has never been masses revolutions in Britain. The powers of the states are too ingrained at the roots of communities, and with a small Island, it is easy to keep an hold from even major crises.

The point is, for all those who dream of a revolutionary climate in UK, forget about it, unless you are a total Fool, then go ahead with your suicidal missions.

To Sum-Up:

In the Western Democracies, the chances of masses revolt are below average, and within some states, like Britain and the Northern States within the Continent. almost Zero-probability.

In short, in The West only the ruling classes can revolt, never the masses.


If one seeks to dominate the western democracies, for example, Europe, one will start by ‘building a base in France’, indoctrinate and inflame the existing passions. It is a factual point of observation, that all the ills of western Europe, can be traced from the breakdown or any activity within France, from Louis, the Sun-God, to Napoleon, to the two major wars, and even the present as we have already reiterated.

Secondly, one will seek to divide the British Isles, and create alliances at the top of the German Elites, and encourage and support the Northern Pacifism and Neutrality, and finally, use the Latin-Passion of the South as the final tool of ‘last assault’. With US, it is as easy to conquer as it is hard to attempt to do so.


(My recent Lecture at Gramscian Institute For Global Studies)


About s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst

Political & Strategy Defence & Security Intelligence & Communications


6 thoughts on “A Political Risk Analysis: (In Brief) An Historical Analysis On The Conditions of Revolutionary-Probabilities Within The Western Democracies (the vulnerable and the invulnerable)

  1. Your analaysis of the US is rather inaccurate. One of the most touted Tea Party standard bearers is Michelle Bachmann, who hails from Minnesota. Similarly, Scott Brown was elected to the Senate from Massachussetts. Go check Wikipedia for more details ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement ). I suggest Wikipedfia only because it aggregates the information. It notes Tea Party victories in South Dakota, Utah, New York, Maine and New Jersey among many others. American politics is far from North-South divisions. There are a variety of ways in which the electorate is split, but to reduce it to a simple North-South schism is to ignore any detail and provide misleading analysis.

    One thing your analysis ignores is how mobile the population is. Americans freely relocate to other parts of the country in a manner not typically found in most countries. The allegiance to a locality or state that could be found in the 19th century is not nearly as strong in the 21st century in the US.

    Posted by David Navarre | August 23, 2011, 2:42 pm
    • You are a ‘patriot’ right? or seems to me, as any person who wears any kind of uniform, scout, or whatever represents with pride his/her patriotic identity; I was once like that.

      Anyway, the point, I realise the need from your part to ‘find another truth or explanation’, I really do, but unfortunately that is that, US is a divided country subjectively (the pride of the south) and objectively (the southerners). I love US, I studied American Studies during my first undergraduate degree as a minor, the history, the literature, the cultures, politics, etc, I even teach nowadays these as a part time tutor. I have great admiration for US, just have a look at the page marked ‘US’ (on the pages section). The Obama Doctrine is literally my doctrine, just have a look at it on American Strategy, and was focus of interest from teh office of the state, and tradoc, before Obama made the speech., and so forth.

      Your analysis is micro-based, searching for something to defeat the truth, and replace with what you believe or comprehend to be the truth. Lets take for example, your argument of internal migration or mobility, it does not matter, when you find a southerner broker, banker, politician etc, you will get same ‘aptitude, traditional thinking, and so forth’, I lived in many places in US.

      Good points, but wrong thinking.


      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | August 23, 2011, 4:50 pm
  2. So, does a banker who grew up in Minnesota and currently lives in Georgia qualify as a southerner or a northerner? How about a New York-based stock trader who was born in Texas? How about the Americans who are immigrants?

    In 2011, about 12.5% of Americans were not born in the US. Are they northerners or southerners?

    In 2000, the Census numbers showed that 40% of Americans did not live in the same state (or country for the foreign-born) they were born in. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/migration/data/files/phc-t38.xls) So, do they belong to their home state or their birth state?

    You relly have no idea how the US population thinks or feels and are merely casting wild stereotypes based on perceptions of regional tensions from 150 years ago.

    Regardless of my politics, I think that you can, by examining the data yourself, find that the Tea Party or any other political group is spread broadly across the geography of the United States, rather than narrowly allocated.

    Keep in mind, you can also find plenty of Marxists, plenty of Muslims and plenty of just about any variety of Americans you want. Remember, there are over 300 million and probably not two that agree on everything.

    Posted by David Navarre | August 23, 2011, 5:31 pm
    • Hey, again.

      You see, you are too into statistical data, which of course, you should know it is highly manipulated, by our knowledge manufacturing industry, the government, academics, businesses, institutions etc, for their own ends (hence, every so maddoff a mile but did nothing, so too with enron, and many others, even at the present, Goldman, and so forth. S& P, punished for downgrading US and creating panic by replacing the Indian chief (not a pun, sorry), with guess who, a CitiBank, and a member of US Federal Reserve etc).

      The point is, again, you have missed my point as you throw yourself deeper into the need/obsession with data, sources, missing the ‘subjectivities’. Let me conduct a little experiment, or rather let yourself do so: Where are you from, originally? I do not need to know, you answer yourself these questions. Secondly, how would you characterise your habits, and value (I am thinking you are from the Middle America, the proud heart of US Survey, right), or somewhere, in the north, bordering Canada, the Cheese-State Belt etc), you have those value of proud American, and naivety with democracy and ‘good democratic governments of the west’.

      Anyway, we have moved a little bit out, continuing with our/your little experiment, what is the main circle of your close friends? their shared value and ways of thinking, similar or different? How do you see others, really? and so forth. Get into your own head, then you will get my points; United State is a divided country and has been since the second waves of European immigration started arriving in the northern shores, as the Dutch, the Irish, Germans etc, started creating boundaries, and recreating their original ‘homeland’ distinct ideologies and cultures, and blah blah.

      The point, my dear friend, whether you would like to accept or admit, US is subjectively, a divided nation, and anyone that can burn the flames can make the subjective come out to play (the fox news network, the tea party, the slavery, immigration issues, and so forth and forth). No micro-reasoning or data-supporting can change the way the state is.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | August 23, 2011, 6:58 pm
  3. The thing you don’t understand is that while there are many divisions without the American electorate, the people on opposite sides of the political fence often side on opposite sides of a physical fence as well. That is, Democrats, Republicans, Marxists, Tea Partiers, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc live completely interspersed and if you think that few years you spent in our country (assuming that a man around 30 who spent time in the military and time at the university had only a few years to live in the US as an adult) exposed you to the truth about the American people, you are far more naive and self-impressed than I’d imagined.

    The odds of anyone being able to not only convince some portion of the American people to start a revolution, but for them to actual do it are…. astronomical.

    Go read Milovan Djilas and try to learn something about praxis and figure out how it could be applied to societies in which the working class has it as good as they do in the West and then tell me why they would risk losing everything they have to change the system.

    Completely avoiding facts, as you seem to suggest doing, is an exercise in folly.

    Posted by David Navarre | August 23, 2011, 8:45 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: