acknowledging that what is destabilizing to one political structure may not
be to another. For example, a refusal of leaders to seek an electoral mandate
may be destabilizing to a constitutional democracy, but not to a hereditary
monarchy (Ake, 1974, 1975; Castles, 1974).
Some indicators of political instability appear unhelpful when their
occurrence coincides with the persistence of regimes. There may be fre-
quent and serious political violence, perhaps associated with communal
identities as in India, yet the system of government survives. It may be that
instability can only be understood in retrospect. But this can only be done if
instability is defined as events leading to the collapse of a regime (as distinct
from a government or policy). Indicators of political instability should be
taken as important and costly events whose causes and consequences
deserve to be understood regardless of whether they lead to the breakdown
of a regime. So the violent transfer from one form of government (e.g.
democracy) to another (e.g. military rule) is only one of the consequences
of civil war, riots, communal or religious conflicts and other forms of
unconstitutional behaviour.
Fourthly, there is the time factor. In addition to knowing what it is a coun-
try must remain free from, it is necessary to specify some time period dur-
ing which it must remain free from destabilizing factors for it to be labelled
stable. It is difficult to know how to decide objectively on the timing of
instability, especially when a brief period of conflict can bring down one
regime (e.g. the Marcos regime in the Philippines) while years of recurring
political violence are accompanied by stable democracy (e.g. India).
Despite such difficulties, much effort has been made to explain political
instability, broadly conceived as the failure of a system of government to
persist over a prolonged period. These explanations will now be examined.
Affluence and poverty
First, increasing affluence is said to improve the chance of stability, especially
in countries with democratic regimes. Conversely, absolute poverty has been
seen as a major cause of political instability. For example, writing about Asia,
Brecher stated that ‘people who live at the margin of subsistence are either
indifferent or hostile to government ... it remains true for most of the new
Asian states that all-pervasive poverty undermines government of any kind’
(1963, p. 623). Poor countries are thus more likely to suffer more political
violence than rich ones. Kenya is a current example. Half the population live
below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate is over 70 per cent.
Instability and Revolution 223