Політичний порядок у мінливих суспільствах

The Henry L. Stimson Lectures Series

by Samuel P. Huntington, Тарас Цимбал (Translator)

Книжка Семюела Гантінґтона стала однією з найвпливовіших праць політологічної та соціологічної науки. Це глобальна спроба пояснити суть світових змін і політичного розвитку другої половини XX століття. У цій книжці американський політолог аналізує, яким є взаємозв’язок між політичним та економічним розвитком, яку роль відіграють суспільні зв’язки й залученість громадян у політику, як відбувається перехід від країн третього світу до розвинених і який вплив мають політичні інституції та форми правління на процеси становлення держав.

Genres: Politics, Political Science, International Relations, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History, Sociology

448 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1968

About the author

Samuel Phillips Huntington was an American political scientist who gained prominence through his "Clash of Civilizations"(1993, 1996) thesis of a new post-Cold War world order. Previously, his academic reputation had rested on his analysis of the relationship between the military and the civil government, his investigation of coups d'etat and for his more recent analysis of threats posed to the U.S. by contemporary immigration.

Reviews

[Trashy Pit · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sammy is a leading High Priest of Political Power. He is one of the main sources of intellectual justification for some of the most fucked up shit that’s happened over the last several decades. Of course, this means he gets to be one of the most highly respected Ivy League professors in the US. What he has really got a knack for is taking an argument that has some grain of truth to it and twisting it into support for super fucked up policies. For example, this book, published in the 60s, takes the fact that most First World countries had developed their economies before they became democratic, and turned this around to argue that “democracy” in a poor country is premature and unsustainable and therefore we should support all the dictatorships around the world and even overthrow the “premature” democracies around the world until they become rich countries. He was very “influential”, consulted for the CIA, and his arguments were used for decades to support the overthrow a bunch of democracies around the world and support tons of brutal neo-fascist dictatorships. This, of course, makes his book a Political Science classic, that all beginner polisci students are forced to read. He then “consulted” for the Apartheid regime, Suharto in Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile and other friendly characters. His later books did a similar thing, for example arguing that different “civilizations” (such as Christian and Muslim) around the world are bound to war against each other so it makes sense to attack Muslims. Now he is claiming that the Hispanic immigrants in this country are destroying our way of life so we should crack down on them.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not saying his ideas caused any of these policies. That’s not the way the world works. Elites don’t do what they do because they believe some such “ideas”. They already know what they wanna do and look around for the ideas that justify their policies. Mushy-headed liberals and “head-in-the-cloud” academics tend to mix these two things up. They end up thinking that if bad ideas are causing all this bad shit, then all we have to do is come up with good ideas and we can change the world. Get real! There’s never been a shortage of alternative ideas. It’s just that “good ideas” simply are not in the interest of or useful to the people at the top of the social order. Instead, the rich and powerful look around for the obsequious sycophants who are willing (in order to get ahead) to come up with the “bad ideas” that do serve their interests. Then these intellectual maggots rise to very high positions of “influence” and “respect” as the new versions of the High Priests who used to serve the Emperors, Pharaohs, Czars and Kings in a similar way. In this sense, Huntington rivals his better-known fellow High Priest of Political Power, Milton Friedman, for having created the leading theories and ideas that serve to justify the brutal, repressive and militaristic policies that help to support the iron-fist rule by the rich and powerful and the exploitation and impoverishment of everyone else. Changing all this isn't going to come from coming up with nicer ideas. Repeating “another world is possible” endlessly, or finding new ways to talk nicely to our enemies so that “we can all just get along”, isn't going to change a damn thing. You want to change the world, you’ve got to replace the whole damn system, starting with the people at the top.

As some old fart once said, “ideas don’t do anything on their own, you need real people using real force to give those ideas real power.” (or something like that – if you can't find that quote anywhere then that old fart must have been me).

I’ll get off my high-horse now. ( :

[Mostafa Bushehri · Rating 3 out of 5]

ساموئل هانتینگتون از خبرگان علوم سیاسی جهان، در سراسر اثر کلاسیک خویش، به دنبال نشان دادن مسيرِ فرايند نهادمند شدنِ مشارکت سياسي در کشورهاي در حال نوسازي است. مسئله وي استواري، ثبات جامعه و سياست در جوامع در حال گذار است.

در پیشگفتار کتاب اینگونه آمده است که؛
«...تجزيه و تحليل پژوهشگرانه راه‌ها و وسايل پيشبردِ سامان سياسي ، با وجود اختلافهايي که بر سر مشروعيت و خوشايندي اين هدف وجود دارد بايد مورد توجه يک دانشمند علوم سياسي باشد. ... سامان سياسي تا اندازه اي به رابطه ميان توسعه نهادهاي سياسي و تحرک نيروهاي اجتماعي به صحنه سياست ، بستگي دارد.»


هانتینگتون در این اثر که حول کلیدواژگانِ دولت، نظم سیاسی، ثبات، نهاد و احزاب است در پی آن است که بگوید فرایند توسعه سیاسی کشورها مسیری جدا از توسعه اقتصادی و اجتماعی است و شرط لازم برای دموکراتیزاسیون کشورها وجودِ یک نظم سیاسی و تمرکز قدرت است.

هانتیگتون در این کتاب قصد دارد تاریخ توسعه کشورهای جهان سوم و در حال گذار را در بستری تاریخی شرح دهد و با نگاه به تاریخ و تحولات آن کشورها از آن تئوری استخراج کند.

کتاب «نظم و زوال سیاسی» نوشته فرانسیس فوکویاما به نوعی بازنویسی کتابِ استاد (هانتیگتون) توسط شاگرد (فوکویاما) است که اخیرا نیز به فارسی ترجمه شده است و حتی عنوان کتاب فوکویاما نیز گرفته‌شده از عنوان فصل اول کتاب هانتیگتون است.

کتاب هانیتگتون که در سال 1968 نوشته شده است شاید چندان با حال و روز کنونیِ ما و دنیای امروز مرتبط نباشد و کتابی است «برای زمانه خویش!» اما با خود اینگونه پنداشتم که بهتر است برای فهمِ کتاب ارزشمندِ فوکویاما (نظم و زوال سیاسی) ابتدا این کتاب را مطالعه کنم.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government.

The differences between democracy and dictatorship are less than the differences between those countries whose politics embodies consensus, community, legitimacy, organization, effectiveness, stability, and those countries whose politics is deficient in these qualities.

Communist totalitarian states and Western liberal states both belong generally in the category of effective rather than debile political systems.

---

A revolution is a rapid, fundamental, and violent domestic change in the dominant values and myths of a society, in its political institutions, social structure, leadership, and government activity and policies.

Revolutions are thus to be distinguished from insurrections, rebellions, revolts, coups, and wars of independence.

A coup d’etat in itself changes only leadership and perhaps policies; a rebellion or insurrection may change policies, leadership, and political institutions, but not social structure and values; a war of independence is a struggle of one community against rule by an alien community and does not necessarily involve changes in the social structure.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

So you have a book on how capitalist industrialisation generates tensions ripping apart premodern societies, pitting merchants, workers, artisans and the bourgeoisie against landlords, clergy and conservatively-inclined peasantry. Might be any number of Marx and Engels' works. Ah well, but this specifically adresses the impact of imperialism by the Western core upon colonized masses. That might be Lenin or Nkrumah, perhaps? Could be, but it also praises Leninism as the organisational paradigm allowing third-world countries to catch up with the west, leaving corrupt Western-backed dictatorships in the dust. Maybe Samir Amin?

No, no, that's all Samuel Huntington, the Class of Civilizations guy, writing at the height of the Vietnam War. Yeah, go figure. I didn't expect the man who advised president Botha not to drop apartheid too quickly to have anything worthwhile on offer, but it turns out he's had a massive, paradigm-shifting history of social change up his sleeve all along. If even half of US sociology graduates internalize a fraction of this, apparently one of the most cited books on the planet, you can almost understand why their foreign policy establishment became so jaded towards Europeans and their antiquated moral calculuses. A humbling experience for this continental.

Order is the institutionalist synthesis of marxism-leninism and modernisation theory. "Modernisation" sought to preempt communist take-overs in the Third World by stimulating economic take-off under the American aegis. But Huntington recognized that "economic growth", the "line-goes-up" view of history, misses out on a perpendicular axis equally important to statecraft: institutionalization, the machinery of society that allows policies to be implemented, contradicting interests to be mediated, political participation to be broadened and states to survive the end of a leader's reign without palace coups.

In a time of ideological pauperization, it's a testimony to how seriously opposing ideas used to be taken. In a legitimately Hegelian fashion, Huntington takes up almost every gauntlet thrown up by the ascendant marxist camp and reframes it within a complex new framework — as he sees the Russian and Chinese revolutions as the proper heirs of the Glorious, the American and the French Revolutions, so he himself forms a part of a red thread starting with the birth of Classical Political Economy. Compared to contemporaries like Acemoglu or Milanovic, probably the closest analogues of political economists today, Huntington seems so much more sophisticated — nothing acquired by previous generations went wasted.

Marx respected Malthus, in spite of the politics he actively furthered, because of his scholarship. I feel similarly now. GR isnt the place to do a deep dive on the contents themselves, I "will" carve out space for that elsewhere. But first I'll get a proper copy of this book so I can underline just about every paragraph.

[Hammad Alhajri · Rating 5 out of 5]

في هذه الدراسه القيمة ينتقد هنتنجتون نظرية التحديث والتي تبحث العلاقة بين التطوير والاستقرار، حيث يدعوا منظروا التحديث بأن اعطاء التحديث قيمة معيارية قوية لأن تكون البلاد حديثه ، فكل ماهو خير في الحداثة يميل الى أن يترابط بعضه مع بعض .
فالتطوير الأقتصادي وتغيير العلاقات الإجتماعية سيعزز بدوره السياسة الحديثة ، وهكذا يتوقف بعضه على بعض .


فعبر هذا الطرح يناقش المؤلف هذه النظرية ويدحض مرتكزاتها الأساسية من الأحداث التاريخية ، ويستخلص بأن النظام السياسي خير في حد ذاته ولن ينشأ تلقائياً من عملية التحديث ، أي بمعنى دون نظام سياسي لا يمكن للتطوير الاقتصادي ولا التطوير الاجتماعي أن يمضيا بنجاح .


وأخيرا الكتاب مليء جداً بالمعلومات الهامه والقيمة للمهتمين بدراسة التطوير السياسي والاقتصادي والاجتماعي .

[Nick Geiser · Rating 3 out of 5]

The best one-sentence summary of Huntington's book I can think of is an update of Aristotle's Politics for the 20th century. Huntington's "big point"--the most important source of political variation between countries is their degree of government, not their type of government--is straight out of Aristotle's distinction between proper and degenerate regime types. A lot of people read Huntington as a conservative and a defender of elite privilege, but in this book at least Huntington is not really making a liberal/conservative point. It's a political point to be sure, but the political agenda commonly associated with Huntington is narrower than the one he's really pursuing here which is an institutionalist, elitist, gradualist conservatism against most forms of radicalism.

Huntington's arguing against a once widely-held view in political science called "modernization" theory that held, to simplify greatly, that countries were on a smooth escalator of development in which democratization, economic development, and the emergence of a modern society all move together. Huntington argues against modernization view that modernization misses a vital necessary condition of political institutionalization. Without political institutionalization, modernization actually leads to political decay and instability rather than political order. Political institutionalization refers to the growth in complexity, adaptability, autonomy, and coherence of political organizations like parties, the military, the bureaucracy, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature. Political institutionalization, Huntington claims, allows political organizations to mediate the social and economic forces unleashed by development and modernization and pursue the common interest rather than the interests of particular factions (again echoing Aristotle).

Huntington's basic evidence for his critique of modernization is increasing political instability in developing countries during the 1950s and 60s in the form of coups, revolutions, and protests. Rather than a smooth monotonic relationship between modernization and political stability, Huntington argues instead for a kind of political Kuznets curve in which political stability is initially decreasing in modernization and later increasing.

It would be a disservice to this book not to acknowledge how conceptually rich and provocative it is. Huntington's conceptualization of institutionalization is fascinatingly rich as well as his discussion of political decay in what he calls "praetorian" (non-institutionalized) polities. The big problem with Huntington's argument, however, is the claim that the quality of political institutions primarily explains the a country's level political stability. Basically, while Huntington's critique of modernization theory is right, his proposed missing variable is not the one. It's worth noting that Huntington only argues that highly institutionalized organizations are /capable/ of pursuing the public good, not that they actually do. As he says, "The capacity to create political institutions is the capacity to create public interests" (24). Note that this says nothing about how these institutions are /actually used/. More fundamentally, however, Huntington doesn't give an argument for why the quality of political institutions rather than the underlying /determinants/ of quality itself. For example, Tony Marx argues, one confounding variable for Huntington is racial exclusion. Racial exclusion, which leads to racial homogeneity among the included citizens in a polity, can be a pre-requisite for political institutionalization but also a direct determinant of political stability.

A different objection to Huntington is the possibility of reverse causation. It may be that political stability itself determines the level of political institutionalization in a country and not the other way around. Huntington doesn't give a real argument for treating political institutionalization as the explanatory rather than the dependent variable.

All this is to say that Huntington draws a possibly useful conceptual distinction between two classes of regimes and makes an association between the two, but he doesn't actually show that there's a causal relationship between the two. Huntington's "stylized fact" that politically stable countries tend to be either very rich or very poor, very "modern" or very "backward," may be right, just as Lipsett's famous stylized fact that all rich countries are democracies may be right. However, we want more than associations--we want explanations, and causal explanations are good explanations.

[Ami]

The main takeaways from this book (for me, personally) are below. Just to clarify, I fundamentally disagree with many of Huntington's conclusions, but I found it useful to write some of them down.

- Underdeveloped countries tend to be stable; developed countries tend to be stable; countries undergoing modernization (attempting to move from the former to the latter, in other words) are likely to experience significant turmoil, however, if they do not have strong political institutions and/or a strong government. "Modernity breeds stability, but modernization breeds instability." (p41)
- The idea that economic success will breed political stability is misguided: "For in fact, economic development and political stability are two independent goals and progress towards one has no necessary connection to progress towards another." (p6)
- Rapid but uneven economic development, the type of which we see in many countries across the globe, is likely to create tensions in society. "Economic development increases economic inequality at the same time that social mobilization decreases the legitimacy of that inequality." (p58)
- Holding 'free and fair elections' in a society that lacks proper political institutions is meaningless at best and dangerous at worst as it will increase awareness of social differences between groups in that society
- Group consciousness and all its early consequences, including extremism, are a by-product of modernization
- The Gap Hypothesis: modernization leads to exposure, which leads to the creation of expectations among the population that a transitional society won't be able to fulfill. "Consequently, a gap develops between aspirations and expectations, want formation and want satisfaction, or the satisfaction function and the level-of-living function. This gap generates social frustration and dissatisfaction. In practice, the extent of this gap provides a reasonable index to political instability." (p54)
- In developing societies dominated economically by foreign investors and/or very small groups/families, people will turn to politics in order to further their personal ambitions. In a different type of society these people could have been entrepreneurs, for example
- On anti-corruption reactions in developing socities: "The initial adherence to modern values by a group in a transitional country often takes extreme form. The ideals of honesty, probity, universalism, and merit often become so overriding that individuals and groups come to condemn as corrupt in their own society practices which are accepted as normal and even legitimate in more modern societies." (p62)
- Corruption has, according to Huntington, some positive aspects: corruption means individuals buy in the system and do not seek its destruction; corruption might help stimulate economic growth by bypassing a country's overly rigid bureaucratic apparatus etc. (pp66-67)
- He more or less advocates for authoritarian rule in societies undergoing transition, with democratic elements to be added after: "Men may, of course, have order without liberty, but they cannot have liberty without order." (pp7-8)

Interesting side notes
- As a Romanian I feel this unfortunately applies to the 'family mentality' of many people in Eastern Europe today: "The amoral familism (...) is typical not of a traditional society, but of a backward society in which the traditional institution of the extended family has disintegrated under the impact of the first waves of modernization. The new values undermine the old bases of association and of authority, before new skills, motivations and resources can be brought into existence to create new groupings."
- I found it hilarious that historians are apparently saying the American Revolution was not the result of the colonies being more politically advanced than England, as popular belief would dictate, but rather the other way around. This quote by C. H. McIlwain, cited by Hungtington, is everything: "The colonists retained to a marked and unusual degree the traditions of Tudor England. In all our study of American institutions, colonial and contemporary, institutions of both public law and private law, this fact must be reckoned with. The breach between colonies and mother country was largely a mutual misunderstanding based, in great part, on the fact of this retention of older ideas in the colonies after parliamentary sovereignty had driven them out in the mother country." (p97)

[Younes Mowafak · Rating 5 out of 5]

بعد الانتهاء من قراءة هذا العمل البحثي الممتاز، يمكنني القول إن فائدته تكمن في توضيح كيفية تنظيم السلطة السياسية، وذلك من خلال دراسة تجارب الدول التي نجحت في تحديث مجتمعاتها من خلال موازنة دقيقة بين الإدارة السياسية والاقتصادية، وإنشاء مؤسسات توزع السلطة القرارية بشكل مناسب.

في الكتاب العديد من الامثلة في هذا الجانب وبعد القراءة المعمقة كنت اتمنى لو أن الكتاب قد خضع من قبل الكاتب لتنقيح واضافة فصل او مقدمة جديدة لمتابعة رؤيته وماحصل لها بعد 1968 (سنة صدر الكتاب) وهل صمدت آراءه وما كان يتوقعه خلال هذه السنوات.

[Foued Bedhief · Rating 5 out of 5]

النظام السياسي في مجتمع متغيّرة - صامويل هنتنجتون

صامويل هنتنجتون(18 أبريل 1927 - 24 ديسمبر 2008 ) هو مفكر و سياسي أميركي ، و بروفسور في جامعة هارفارد لـ 58 عاماً و مفكر محافظ. عمل في عدة مجالات فرعية منبثقة من العلوم السياسية والأعمال، تصفه جامعة هارفارد بمعلم جيل من العلماء في مجالات متباينة على نطاق واسع، وأحد أكثر علماء السياسة تأثيراً في النصف الثاني من القرن العشرين.
كتابه النظام السياسي في مجتمعات متغيرة الصادر عام 1968، و هو العمل الذي تحدى النظرة التقليدية لمنظري التحديث، بأن التقدم الاقتصادي والاجتماعي من شأنه أن ينتج الديمقراطيات المستقرة في البلدان التي تخلصت من الاستعمار في الآونة الأخيرة.
صدرت ترجمة جديدة لهذا الكتاب عام 2017، عن دار التنوير، وبـ 559 صفحة من القطع الكبير، ونقله إلى العربية الدكتور حسام نايل، بإيضاحات ساهمت في إزالة أي لبس يمكن حصوله في حالة نقل المصطلح، أو بعض السياقات الكتابية، من الإنجليزية إلى العربية. أكّد هنتنجتون أن تطوّر الولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا والاتحاد السوفييتي، من الناحية السياسية، كان على "قدم المساواة" سياسيا مع التطور الاجتماعي و الاقتصادي و يقول هنتنجتون في هذا السياق: "في الولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا العظمى والاتحاد السوفييتي، أنظمة حكم مختلفة، كلّها تمارس الحكم، وفي كل بلد منها، يوجد مجتمع سياسي يحقق توافقاً شاملاً فيما بين الشعب على شرعية النظام السياسي". مؤكداً أن في تلك البلاد، توجد "مؤسسات سياسية قوية ومتماسكة وقادرة على التكيّف". حيث يقوم النظام السياسي عند هنتنجتون على مبدأ "المؤسّسة" بغضّ النظر ان كانت ديمقراطية او لا ديمقراطية بل يكفي ان يكون هناك نظام سياسي قائم و يفصله بذلك على النظام الاقتصادي الذي يجعله موازيا او رابطا له و ليس هو الأساسي لبلوغ التطور السياس بل العكس .
فهنالك معايير لإضفاء الطابع السياسي بدءا من وجود اجتماع سياسي توافقي يعتمد على قوة التنظيمات والإجراءات السياسية في المجتمع ثم ان هذا النظام قادر على التكييف مع كل تغير اجتماعي فتصلّبه قد ينتج عنه تصدّع في مؤسساته و انخفاض لقدراتها في التكيف و كذلك عدم ملائمتها للتغير الاجتماعي و الاقتصادي .
يحدد هنتنجتون ثلاث مراحل لبلوغ النظام السياسي درجة عالية من التكيف و الملائمة مع التقلّبات و التغييرات الاجتماعية و الاقتصادية و هي :
-الزمن
-الأجيال
-الوظيفة

(1)الزمن: يؤكد هنتنجتون على أن بقاء اي تنظيم سياسي و تطوّره و قدرة مؤسساته صارت ارفع مرتبطا بمدّة قدمه ، فالتطور السياسي عنده هو تطوّر بطيء مقارنة بالتطور الاقتصادي الذي يكون متسارعا فلا يمكن تشكيل حزب رئيسي قوي و له تأثير دائم في يوم ، يقول "لا يتمّ إنشاء المؤسسات السياسية إذا بين عشية و ضحاها".
(1)عمر الأجيال : و يعني بذلك وجود القيادات من أجيال جديدة في الحكم باعتبار أن "إحلال مجموعة من القادة محل مجموعة أخرى، مثلا للتغلب على أزمة انتقال السلطة" ستكون أمراً "هاماً من حيث قابلية التكيف المؤسسي، لكنه ليس كأهمية تغيير أجيال القيادة، أي إزاحة مجموعة من القادة بمجموعة أخرى ذات تجارب جدّ مختلفة" فالانتقال من جيل لآخر في حكم تنظيم او حزب معين هو تحفيز على تطوير التنظيم و إضفاء طابع عصري على المؤسسة و يعتبر ذلك "حالة صحّية" لبلوغ الحزب ذروته التنظيمية.
(3) الوظيفة : يعتبر هنتنجتون أن "التنظيم المتكيف مع التغييرات الطارئة على بيئته ، ينجح في إدخال تغيير أو أكثر ضمن وظائفه الرئيسية" وبذلك يكون "طابعه المؤسسي أعلى" ، حيث ينشأ كل تنظيم لإداء وظيفة معينة و عندما تنتهي تلك الوظيفة تنهي مهمّته او بقائه على قيد الحياة فيرتهن للموت البطيء . فتنظيم اكثر ديمومة و ملائمة هو التنظيم الذي كيّف وظائفه للتغير و مسايرة كل تغيير و ليس تحديد الوظائف هو المهم بل التكيّف الذي يجعل قادة هذا التنظيم يقيّمونه من أجل ذاته و بذلك سيطوّر وجوده الذاتي على خلاف تحديد وظائفه فيكون تنظيم اكثر تكيّفا و تطوّرا .

يعدّ الكتاب نموذجا في الدراسات السياسية و حقلا من المعلومات للدارسين و الراغبين في معرفة طبيعة الأنظمة السياسية و ظروف تغيّرها من الإستقرار إلى التقلقل و الفوضى ، و نختم مقالنا هذا بمقولة هنتنجتون "إنّ المجتمع العاجز فعلا ليس المجتمع الذي تهدّده الثورة ، بل المجتمع الغير مؤهّل لها" .

[Choong Chiat · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is perhaps regretful that, post- September 11 2001, most people are familiar only with the late Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" but not his earlier seminal works. Of these works, "Political Order in Changing Societies" is perhaps a classic which all students of political science should read.



This is considering that although the book was originally written in the 1960s, it is almost brim full of thought-provoking, illuminating and, at times, counter-intuitive insights about politics that are perhaps still relevant and valid in today's world. One will just have to look at the recent happenings in Tunisia to recognise this truth.

[Marc Sabatier · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book has aged surprisingly well. The "change" Huntington describes is modernity, and I'm quite impressed by how well some of the trends that he describes hold up today. So the main points are still highly valid.

What Huntington understands uniquely well is power. He sees that power is not something that exists out there to be restricted, but something to be created through political organisation. And without the creation of power, no political order can be established.

These thoughts really work as useful contrast to the dominating story of useful institutions as ones that limit the power of government; Huntington turns us on our heads and asks to think of how this power is to come at all.

This focus really elevates what political science can do, but the book is highly recommended to all.

[parmis khojaste bakht · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب را برای فهم رابطه‌ي بین دموکراسی و مدرنیزاسیون خواندم. با اینکه بخشی از کتاب قدیمی شده و کتاب برای قبل از انقلاب ۵۷ است، بخشی که به تحلیل کنش و واکنش نیروهای اجتماعی در فرآیند مدرنیزاسیون می‌پردازد عالی‌ست. مثال های زیادی هم از شرایط ایران زده شده.
علاوه بر یادگیری درباره خود مسئله، نگاه هانتینگتون به کنش و واکنش نیروها بسیار آموزنده است و خود این مدل نگاه برای امروز هم کاربرد دارد.

[John Hess · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most important books ever written. It's a shame the author is a racist.

[Eleanore · Rating 4 out of 5]

While published in 1968, it is surprising how relevant and useful some of the insights in this book remain. Many do display the dust of the intervening decades, less the dust of scholarship than of global events. Yet Huntington's masterful narrative style and clear argument ensures this provocative work's continuing place in the canon of IR classics...

[Steven Peterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read the original version in graduate school. I found the thesis vaguely disquieting at that time (and now). I recall clearly, though, the animated discussion in class over the validity of his argument. And I thought then--and now--that a book that could generate such debate has value.

[Samira Farokhmanesh · Rating 4 out of 5]

از این کتاب چیزهای زیادی یاد میگیرید. البته نباید فراموش کرد که نگاهی در تحلیل مسایل دیپلماتیک داریم بنام نگاه هانتینگتونی! که در ایران هم رواج داره. یعنی آنچه در این کتاب میخوانید برگرفته از رویکرد خاص شخص هانتینگتون و روش تحلیل این فرد است که قدرت تاثیرگذاری زیادی بر مخاطب داره.

[Fatik Thapa]

A must read book for all poltiicians

[Albert Ananyan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a flawed masterpiece that demolishes the optimistic Western belief that democracy and economic development always go hand-in-hand.

Huntington's foundational point is that the most important distinction is not a country's form of government but its degree of government. He argues that modernizing nations suffer from a "political gap" which refers to the destabilizing lag created when rapid social modernization (like urbanization, literacy, and media) accelerates want FORMATION, while the slow development of political institutions prevents want SATISFACTION. This gap between aspirations and capabilities generates social frustration and political instability, a trap that top-down authoritarian regimes are better capable of handling by repressing or controlling the very processes of social mobilization that create those "wants" in the first place.

This leads to his most controversial and uncomfortable thesis: order must come before liberty. As he states, "The primary problem is not liberty but the creation of a legitimate public order. Men may, of course, have order without liberty, but they cannot have liberty without order. Authority has to exist before it can be limited..."

This isn't an argument for dictatorship (as many perceive), but it's a cold, hard look at why authoritarian regimes that successfully build institutions often set the stage for long-term development, while well-meaning but weak democracies often collapse. This can be perfectly captured by looking at foreign state-building projects like Japanese colonialism in Korea in Taiwan or Soviet state-building in Central Asia versus US state-building projects.

It's a common misunderstanding to read Political Order as an argument for benevolent or developmental authoritarians, like Lee Kuan Yew. This critique, however, misses Huntington's more fundamental and uncomfortable point. The book isn't arguing that we need rare, development-focused dictators; it's arguing that in a vacuum of authority, the prerequisite for any future development is order, and this order is often established by brutal regimes. His thesis is not that authoritarianism causes development, but that it is often the only force capable of creating the strong state institutions necessary for it. A perfect, if terrifying, example is Mao: a brutal dictator who nonetheless "created the state institutions and national reach" that a later, more development-oriented leader like Deng Xiaoping could "leverage" for economic transformation. This same pattern can be seen in Korea or Taiwan, where Japanese authoritarian colonialism first built the "state capacity" that post-war governments could then use to industrialize. Huntington's core point is that these effective, order-creating regimes—communist or colonial—may not provide liberty, but they do provide authority and, most importantly create governments that can govern.

It's a powerful lens to view the world, and it makes me look at my own government's policies, like prioritizing popular-but-consumptive pensions over hard investments in state capacity, and see the exact political decay Huntington warned about.

[Richard Marney · Rating 5 out of 5]

As is agreed, this book is a classic and has laid the groundwork for considerable scholarship since it’s publication.

There is much in this book.

Three important takeaways for me in this second reading years later:

Professor Huntington’s argument that premature political liberalization can lead to instability in the context of institutionally weak states spawned the developmental strategy of the authoritarian transition. In the case of selected countries, Asian Tigers such as Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, this has proven successful (for non-chewing gum lovers), but not for much of the emerging and developing world.

The phenomenon of political decay warrants careful study.

Whilst political and economic development follow separate tracks, the latter is highly dependent on the former being a supportive and not destructive catalyst.

[Mu-tien Chiou]

裴敏欣說：
我到哈佛大學時，他正好是65歲、66歲的時候，正值學術成就的頂峰時期，我對他最大的印象是，從個性來講，他生性非常低調，不太說話，是一個很靦腆的人。
我選他的第一門課，就是「比較政治學」，當時我所讀的第一本他著作的書是《變遷中社會的政治秩序》 （Political Order In Changing Society, 1968），我一看，覺得這不得了，這是天才的書！那本書，可以說是改變我的學術軌跡，原本我應該是要學國際關係，但他的書中有許多比較政治分析、解釋、理論，特別是現代化國家的政治穩定、政治變革，他的見解是天才性的，讓我十分佩服，使我感到學比較政治更有意思。

但他是說一個國家最主要的是「政治秩序」，政治秩序的來源是一個「強而有力的政府」，但怎麼形成強而有力政府？許多人解讀成，發展中國家實行威權主義，能夠提供一個強而有力的政府。但他其實並沒有給一個清楚的答案。

杭廷頓教授做學問的方式最大的影響是兩點：第一點，是找到重要的問題。學術可研究的問題很多，但大部份問題都是不重要的。像杭廷頓教授，他選的題都是最重要的，而且他有前瞻性，許多十年之後成為很重要的問題，十年之前他都看到了，這個特質是沒人可比的，他是天才。
第二點，是他根據事實說話，你如果要研究某個問題，你必須要有足夠的證據，這是他對許多學生的影響，他為學生樹了很好的學風。

[Julius · Rating 5 out of 5]

Entstanden in den späten 1960ern beschreibt das Buch unter welchen Voraussetzungen es zu stabilen oder instabilen Gesellschaften kommt. Huntington geht dabei auf geschichtliche Ausgangssituationen und die Aktionsmöglichkeiten der verschiedenen Gesellschaftsgruppen und -schichten. Gut gelungen finde ich die häufigen Einschübe zu politischen Systemen.

[Harith Alrashid · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب مهم جدا للمهتمين بالانظمة السياسية في المجتمات غير المتطورة مثل الدول العربية سواء الانظمة العسكرية او الملكية

[Musab Mohamed · Rating 5 out of 5]

من الكتب الشيقة والمفيدة التي لايمل الشخص من قراءتها في كل مرة.
كتاب فيه شرح للتحولات التي تحدث داخل الانظمة السياسية وعمليات التحديث والعصرنة التي تتم فيها.

[Majid Al-Asseri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Magnum Opus.. Without a doubt..

On the aspect of how to modernize a state

[Jiro]

对历史的不熟悉让我很难跟上作者的思路和视野，自然需要再读。印象深的地方是对共产主义政权的评论（第五章）。

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Political Order in Changing Societies" is a book written by Samuel Huntington, an influential political scientist and professor at Harvard University. The book was first published in 1968 and focuses on the challenges of creating and maintaining stable political institutions in societies undergoing rapid social and economic change.

Huntington argues that in societies undergoing rapid change, there is often a breakdown of traditional forms of political authority, as well as a loss of trust in existing institutions. This can lead to social unrest, political instability, and even violence. Huntington proposes that the key to establishing and maintaining political order in these contexts is the development of effective political institutions that can manage competing interests and mediate conflicts.

The book offers a comparative analysis of political development in a range of different countries and regions, including Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Huntington argues that while each society faces its own unique set of challenges, there are certain universal principles and strategies that can be applied to promote political order and stability.

"Political Order in Changing Societies" has had a significant impact on the fields of political science and international relations. Its focus on the importance of effective political institutions and the challenges of political development in rapidly changing societies has influenced the work of many scholars and policymakers.

GPT

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Huntington is most likely the best in his field and this book is a proof of that: through a clear and specific (but still not too difficult) analysis of the role of institutions and men in the society, he manages to make a perfect synthesis of what has happened and a convincing forecast of what will happen. A wonderful book in my honest opinion (and Fukyama's preface is another point in favor) .

[Gregory Stone · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'll have to re-read this at some point, but Huntington makes an excellent case regarding the need for political consolidation and stability through a balance of social forces, a balance of modernization across multiple areas (education, industry, technology, political participation), balance between urban and rural areas, and a balanced perspective regarding democracy itself (nominal democracy is not of necessity either stable or true democracy). He also points to the peculiarities of the US form of democracy in a striking way, particularly the unique context within which the US democratic system formed.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

Huntington looks at the major divisions in the world, and instead of seeing the main divide as being between capitalist and communist states, he sees states able to maintain stability and order and those that cannot. He concludes that this is to to a lack of political order and institutions, and asserts that modernization and development must be separated as concepts. Rather than modernization leading to development as many assert, he instead sees modernization as an inherently conflictual process.

[Ross Neely · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great book. Probably one of the best regarding developmental economics and politics. It is dense to read, but provides a great understanding of how institutions form in a developing country.
Seems like 5 books all wrapped up into one. It is not often that a book written in the 60's is still so relevant in today's world.