Descent into the Maelstrom

Abstract

In his examination of governing under capitalism, Goran Therborn (2008) remarks that evidence of a society, in which the forces of social control manage through the general population’s acceptance of the legitimacy of that rule, is the absence of a police presence to enforce ideological domination. The less often one experiences the police on a daily basis, the more we can argue that people have – consciously or unconsciously – accommodated to the social, political and economic structure of society. It stands to reason, then, that the opposite is true, that a major presence of institutions of control in their many forms (whether local constabulary, regional authorities, national police, and – in the most extreme case – military units) will reflect a society in stress, a society which increasingly shows signs of a loss of legitimacy or support for ruling elites and structures. Recent history is full of examples where this is true, from the increasing need for both civil and secret police authorities to impose order in what we have called repressive regimes to the presence of military rule by juntas or ‘elected’ generals, all used to quell dissent or crush opposition while maintaining a ruling elite. Political elites in the US gleefully point to countries with martial law or a strong police presence as examples of rogue nations that don’t abide by democratic principles, especially when those countries fail to support US policies, all the while easily ignoring other repressive regimes if they are deemed allies of the US. One only need recall former US Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick’s clear demarcation between when she called authoritarian regimes and totalitarian regimes (all the while meaning non-communist versus communist). She stated (1992):