peasantry as a class by exacting a larger surplus from it, but leaves it intact
by failing to develop a sufficiently powerful commercial impulse in the
countryside. When the commercial interest in rural life is sufficiently strong
to destroy the peasantry as a class, peasant-based revolution is less likely.
Revolution in predominantly agrarian societies have occurred when the
landed classes by and large did not make a successful transition to the world
of commerce and industry and did not destroy the prevailing social organi-
zation among the peasants (Moore, B., 1973, pp. 459–67).
Conclusion
The focus in much of this chapter has been on the rural poor, the obstacles to
their effective political participation and the crises which precipitate extreme
reactions against those who dominate them economically and politically. But
many other factors have been related to political instability, though the direc-
tion of causality has not always been clear. None is sufficient in itself to
explain the complexity of phenomenon. The significance of each factor will
vary according to the circumstances of region, history, level of economic
development and place within the international system. It thus becomes
important to know, as Ake implied in his formulation, under what circum-
stances is a factor such as economic inequality, rapid economic growth, or
social differentiation likely to lead to political instability. One answer is
when the expectations of political participants of appropriate social, eco-
nomic and political action are not met by changes in social organization. So
if, for example, extreme inequalities in pre-industrial societies are found to
be associated with political stability, contrary to the expectations of analysts,
this can be explained by reference to the absence of egalitarianism from the
dominant image of society. When that image is changed as a result of mass
mobilization, inequality becomes less acceptable and political instability can
result. Similarly, rapid economic growth in contemporary Western societies
is not destabilizing because such changes have become institutionalized
expectations of the dominant ideology (Castles, 1974, pp. 294 –7).
The advantage of such a paradigm is that it provides a framework for
understanding why supposedly causal factors operate under some circum-
stances but not others. In stressing the importance of the response to
changes in society and economy by the dominant protagonists of current
images it also helps to explain why a group or class that might be expected
a priorito be violently dissatisfied with their lot expresses no political
dissent likely to undermine political stability.
Instability and Revolution 249