Samuel Huntington and the Positivity of Power Thinking
Samuel Huntington, the political theorist who died on Dec. 24 at the age of 81, was a power thinker, one of the breed of “big idea” men whose major works didn’t just explain historical transformation but seemed to crystallize it — in ways that altered how the rest of us looked at the world, for better and also for worse.
In provocative books like “Political Order in Changing Societies” and “The Clash of Civilizations,” Mr. Huntington’s talent — some would say weakness — for the grand synthesizing theory is most strikingly on display. In 1968, when “Political Order” was published, most political scientists held that the key to democracy was modernization. As backward societies caught up with the more advanced ones, they would also develop more inclusive political systems. But Mr. Huntington made a contrary argument: since modernization often brought chaos, the actual sine qua non of a successful society was order. It alone could contain the demons set loose by social change and also create the conditions for gradual political reform. By this calculation, any system that imposed order, even authoritarian order, was legitimate.
In the Soviet Union, Britain and the United States, “the government governs,” Mr. Huntington wrote. All three “have strong, adaptable, coherent political institutions: effective bureaucracies, well-organized political parties.”
Published at a time when efforts to build a democratic nation in South Vietnam had proved disastrous, Mr. Huntington’s book changed the debate....
Read entire article at Lee Siegel in the NYT
In provocative books like “Political Order in Changing Societies” and “The Clash of Civilizations,” Mr. Huntington’s talent — some would say weakness — for the grand synthesizing theory is most strikingly on display. In 1968, when “Political Order” was published, most political scientists held that the key to democracy was modernization. As backward societies caught up with the more advanced ones, they would also develop more inclusive political systems. But Mr. Huntington made a contrary argument: since modernization often brought chaos, the actual sine qua non of a successful society was order. It alone could contain the demons set loose by social change and also create the conditions for gradual political reform. By this calculation, any system that imposed order, even authoritarian order, was legitimate.
In the Soviet Union, Britain and the United States, “the government governs,” Mr. Huntington wrote. All three “have strong, adaptable, coherent political institutions: effective bureaucracies, well-organized political parties.”
Published at a time when efforts to build a democratic nation in South Vietnam had proved disastrous, Mr. Huntington’s book changed the debate....