Early in my studies of history I began to see patterns and oscillations within the history of African and Latin American and Southeast Asian countries in particular, and the pendulum swing between anarchy and tyranny never seems to end for most countries. Dictators seek to rule for life but have no way of translating the barren and oppressive stability of their tenure into legitimacy for their successors. Fragile and divided democratic regimes exist at the bidding of overly powerful militaries whose inability to protect their borders is not matched by any sense of love and protection of the common folk (who are often seen as threats and rivals for power) or any sense of humility in the face of their incompetence at rule and incompetence in serving and protecting their nations.

Why does this oscillation exist? All too often, we as human beings seek to pay back others for wrongs, often by use of collective identity, and in seeking to right the wrongs of the past, they wrong others in turn. This then creates a group of wronged people who are willing to support those who were previously removed from power, creating a permanent oscillation between people upset about different threats and injustices between different poles. The consequences can be immensely destructive, even for relatively advanced nations. France, for example, was so fiercely divided between an anti-religious secular and socialist order and a Catholic aristocratic order that even the threat of Nazi Germany could not lead the nation to unite against a common foe, leading to a quick defeat and a disastrous occupation.

And everywhere one turns one sees this oscillation. An often-neglected aspect of this oscillation is the crushing of the middle between two extremes. In many Latin American countries, for example, political stability has been undermined by the inability of weak centrist elected regimes to either seek opportunities for a great mass of rural and urban poor or control overly powerful militaries who serve as an omnipresent threat to their own legitimacy and hold over power. A free political order can only endure if there exists a broad and shared worldview that seeks the resolution of difficulties through words and ballots rather than bullets. Without that shared commitment to refrain from violence, no republic can endure, but that shared commitment to peace depends on a recognition of legitimacy of different political opinions, as well as a shared commitment to the well being of the country at large.

These conditions are not easy to meet. Often it is the presence of a community pot of resources to divide that allows different political worldviews to peacefully coexist. In the United States, for example, it was the funding to dam every stream and river that allowed the spoils of development and infrastructure money that gave every congressional district some loot, and kept conflicts low. When the money started running low in the early 1990’s, politics became more and more fierce, and the threat of growing insolvency and the lack of people willing and able to change their ways presents a deep threat to our own republic as well as many other republics around the world.

Nor is the United States alone. Most republics, it would appear, owe their survival to the existence of a sufficiently wealthy society able to divide the spoils between regions and sectors to keep conflict down. The electoral viability of Argentina’s Peronist coalition depended on the existence of a sufficiently wealthy Argentine society able to provide a decent income to working class people while also providing enough profit to businesses and enough funds for the military to minimize the threat of coups. Chile’s republic failed in the 1920’s and 1970’s when reform efforts on the left exceeded the ability of the right to accept change, and when deeply divided government provided the space for a military to consider itself more competent than corrupt politicians in ruling over a deeply divided country.

What happens when the community lacks the resources to divide among its members? Then people have to fight over limited opportunities and limited resources, and any gain by one sector of the population is seen in zero sum terms–if the public sector grows, that is a threat to businesses and especially small entrepreneurs, if the wealthy gain, that means that the poor and working (and even middle classes) stagnate or suffer. It would appear that we need to increase resources to provide more room for people, more security, and reduce the severity of conflicts over resources. But nowhere do we see these resources increasing. What we see instead is shrinking resource bases and corresponding conflicts. Insecurity is often what drives our conflicts in institutions, as priorities must be made that determine winners and losers, making institutions and their leadership vitally important in allowing one’s needs to be met.

And the responses of those whose well-being is threatened is limited. There really are only two options that are considered legitimate ways of resolving disputes nowadays, and that is either victory or division. If a group of people considers themselves unable to take over the power of an institution, they will leave that institution and seek to control their own smaller resource base for themselves, rather than share those resources with a larger institution that does not meet its needs or respect its concerns or provide it rule. This is true whether their cause is just or unjust. It would therefore appear as if institutions and societies need to do a better job in providing a vision of well-being for all, to reduce or eliminate that insecurity that causes threats of division in the first place. And we do not appear to be doing a good job at providing that vision of a better future in the first place given our short-term focus, our depth of fear and concern, and our limited resources to work with. We must do better, given what is at stake.

And that is the tragedy of the pendulum. If we were content to let the pendulum rest, to forgive the wrongs of the past, we would not create new wrongs that lead to renewed conflicts and divisions. If we could put our energies towards the creation and stewarding of our resources, rather than fighting, we would probably have far more resources to work with, which would reduce the conflicts we deal with now. If unions were as useful in increasing the productivity of their labor rather than making unsustainable pension demands, they might not be seen as a threat to the survival of companies. If CEOs were willing to tighten their belts and not demand massive raises when their companies were doing poorly, they would not be the scapegoats of bankruptcies. Generally the pendulum swings because there are wrongs on both the right side and the left side that push against the other, which is what creates the swing and oscillation in the first place between tyranny and the anarchy. To find justice and peace, one needs forgiveness and the self-discipline to avoid abusing power. We must be virtuous to avoid the false dilemma of anarchy and tyranny. But where is that virtue to be found unless we can become virtuous ourselves even in difficult circumstances? We have much work to do to stop that pendulum and to heal the divides in our own strife torn world.