Stability and Dissent

Some facts about the world we live in are so obvious that we do not notice them, and consequently do not contemplate their implications. One such fact is that all stable systems have process that oppose change; i.e. that tend to return the systems to states of equilibrium when perturbed. This is true of all types of systems: economic, chemical, social, biological, physical, etc. Stable systems remain so even of the point of equilibrium changes, because the restorative process remain effective. One consequence of this fact is that systems for which the restoring effect is eliminated tend to become unstable, and an area where this is particularly dangerous is in political systems.

Regimes, typically of authoritarian or dictatorial inclination, that suppress any form of opposition or dissent become unstable and eventually fail. This is readily observed in history, which gives examples of the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, the Third Reich, etc. Political dissent is a mechanism that tends to restore perturbations in political systems, and thus act to stabilize them. This does not mean that political methods of persuasion cannot be used to change the points of equilibrium, for example from more conservative to more progressive and vice versa, but to assert that the system will tend to excess and instability in the absence of an effective method of dissent. Dissenting views, even if highly unfavored in particular eras are likely to contain elements of wisdom that are crucial to long term survival of effective polities.

A similar concept applies not only to political systems but to individual ideologues. The hard-liners,, the Pol-Pots, and Robespierres, and Che Guevaras and Trotskys are the ones who come to bad ends, easily being outmaneuvered by more pragmatic rivals. Fanatacism does not lend itself well to stability, and the inability to accommodate dissent is a regularly fatal flaw in political movements.