Thomas Rainsborough
A scene from the movie Dances with Wolves: Kevin Costner runs into the
open prairie, stops and turns away, walks back to his camp, then charges
out again. Makes no sense, crazy man, native scouts think, observing him
from a distance. Then they notice a wolf. The animal is alert and edgy; it
retreats as the man advances, but not far, just enough to stay out of reach.
Its fear balanced against curiosity, and hope for a food scrap, the wolf
draws Costner into making mutually influenced steps; they dance.
A state breaths, someone said, once inhaling willing settlers from its fringe,
other times exhaling desperate subjects who escape excessive taxes,
oppressive administration and military conscription. Great kingdoms, small
polities and modern republics expanded, contracted and often collapsed
due to these population movements, illustrating the unchanging truth:
countries are not made of fields, hills and rivers but of people. J.C. Scott
depicts state builders expanding their powers as new subjects were
attracted, but provides even more examples of ambitious rulers who
commanded military campaigns and ordered grand state-sponsored
projects only to see their dominions crumble as subjects trickled away or
rose in an open rebellion. “A temple was built but the country ruined,” went
a Thai proverb.
The Art of Not Being Governed is a fascinating book, but as the author
states, the ungoverned peoples of Southeast Asia are mostly gone. Forced
integration, genocide and economic pressures squeezed the last resistors
from their mountain hideaways and their home marshes had been drained.
The modern technology: all season roads, helicopters, electronic
communications, GPS had overcome the “geographical friction” keeping
the “barbarians” out of state’s reach. At the end, government programs to
settle them down, to register and make them into subjects have
succeeded; they have become “governed.” They lost. So, why would
anyone outside a narrow academic field want to study the history of the
Karen, Hmon or Miao, watch them dance with their counterpart states?
As I was reading The Art of Not Being Governed, I realized that the dance
had never stopped! Governments and certain segments of populations
continue their “step forward, step back, and reverse” boogie; just the
tempo grew faster. A contemporary state’s technological power is vastly
superior to the means of a medieval Thai kingdom, but the “barbarians” put
the air travel, electronic communications, and other tools of digital
revolution in their arsenals as well. Costumes changed and the stage
moved from inaccessible hills into the cities, but governments and their
citizens keep circling the floor, one partner grasping with a muscular arm,
the other bashfully withdrawing. Not only the dance go on, the hesitant
subjects gain more influence. The migrants’ political power, their ability to
restrain governments by act of voting with their feet, is growing stronger
because the economic value brought by qualified workers overwhelms now
the importance of controlling land, mineral resources and unskilled labor.
Why did they stay then? Because they were forced to. Slaves and their
children, bondsmen and other captives were legally bound to stick to their
fields and the enforcement was ferocious. Volunteer settlers could have
more leeway but were quickly ensnared into a web of debts and
obligations. J. C. Scott opines, referring to the Great Wall: “Thus the
walls . . . were calculated as much to keep a tax-shy peasantry from ‘going
over to the barbarians’ as to keep the barbarians at bay.”
The hill-inhabitants, on the other hand, moved into the exactly opposite
direction, eschewing everything that might promote their incorporation into
a state. Freewheeling tribesmen were quite tepid on issues of ethnicity;
new members—often emerging from state-controlled zones—were
accepted freely. Families moving into different regions shifted their
professed ethnic roots effortlessly, as circumstances dictated. Lack of
written genealogy and fixed records was an asset; a bit of tweaking on
their oral traditions placed the family heritage exactly where it was most
convenient. Obviously, it helped that as a rule they were multilingual.
Cultural practices were adopted and shed according to their usefulness.
The religious matters were kept simple and unorthodox; even if they
formally subscribed to one of the supra-regional sophisticated faiths, their
heaven was big enough to accommodate any new prophets.
Reach countries, the USA first among them, attract quality human capital
easily by promise of opportunities for personal success. They bring with
them exceptional skills and entrepreneurial energy. This perpetuates high
productivity and comfortable life, ensuring ongoing inflow of talent and
minimizing its loss—the state “inhales”. It would be good to remember
though, that direction of the “brain-drain” can change rapidly. Just as
Southeast Asian tribesmen calculated their benefits and risks, deciding
whether to stay in a village or jump into a non-state territory, the highly
mobile workers—native as well as foreign born—carry on their kitchen
table conversations. What goes into these family dialogues is highly
individual: employment opportunities, incomes, taxes, political freedoms,
amount of red tape . . . Who knows? But we can be certain that the state’s
economy will clearly feel effects of these decisions. As Scott shows in his
book, as goes the productive population, so does the kingdom. The final
months of the German Democratic Republic might illustrate validity of this
opinion in modern times. A border between East Germany and Hungry was
opened on September 10, 1989; sixty thousand East Germans bolted
through the gap in a matter of days. The GDR government collapsed a
month later.
As much as the general public might realize how indispensable are the
mobile workers for economic reasons, the significance of the political
effects of their feet voting remains unknown. Puffed up in their self-
importance of voters, despite the ample evidence of their wishes not being
seriously considered, the fellow citizens do not recognize the political favor
that highly productive, feet-balloting nomads provide. At the end, the rulers
(the intelligent ones) may be more worried about the flight of prolific
tribesmen than the peasants’ grumbling. The people may forgive many
trespasses but not the luck of basic goods; and this is the bottom line for
any government.