J-curve or soup spoon?

As states transition from being closed to open societies – meaning societies that tolerate and even celebrate a diversity of ideas and influences, both internally generated and those that come from abroad – they necessarily must undergo a period of instability. The decline into instability is dramatic and rapid, considerably more so than the subsequent regaining of stability that comes once states pass though the worst of the instability and continue to increase their openness. Therefore, the relationship between stability and openness, and in particular changes in either of them, follows a J-shaped curve, which is steeper on the ‘less open’ left side (where small shifts in levels of openness lead to large changes in levels of stability) than on the ‘more open’ right side. The J-curve is the subject and title of a book by political scientist Ian Bremmer, who wrote his 2006 book dedicated to this J-curved relationship between stability and openness.

One of Bremmer’s main points is that it is not possible to cheat the J-curve. As closed left-side societies open, they necessarily have to go through a period of instability at the bottom of the J-curve. In time, however, further opening eventually yields greater stability.

Bremmer’s main (but not exclusive) interest lies in left side states, recounting in his book the history of a variety of states that plunged rapidly down the left side of the curve as they opened, experiencing dramatic instability even though their openness changed just a little. He also explains why regimes under threat tend to close their societies, gaining stability in the process and moving up the left side of the curve.

Bremmer does not, however, spend sufficient time in addressing how it is that states make the slow climb to increased stability up the right side of the curve through greater opening. Looking at the curve and Bremmer’s relative neglect of the right side, it seems that the climb to increased stability is slow but inevitable as long as a state continues to open itself.

This is not often the case. It is possible to continue to open but see little reward for it in terms of stability. Today, with widespread mobile phone coverage and increasing internet coverage, it is increasingly difficult for governments to control how much people communicate with each other, both within the country and with outsiders. In 2007, the junta in Burma managed to impose some information flow controls, but these were late and imperfect. In many sub-Saharan countries, governments lack the means to come anywhere close to controlling the air and mind waves in their territories. A combination of democratic reform and technological advances have meant that many sub-Saharan African countries have increased their levels of openness; but many have remained relatively unstable.

Weak governments, increased technology and freer media have meant that ideas flow freely and widely but this has not necessarily led to increased stability. Just more chatter: some useful, some nasty, some sillly.

Openness needs to be constructively channeled. Corrupt politicians have been exposed in Kenya on numerous occasions, but nothing has been done to oust them. Pigmies in the Democratic Republic of Congo can freely complain about being targeted by cannibalistic gangs, but this does little to reduce their vulnerability when the authorities do nothing about it. Therefore, unless there are state and civil institutions that can direct the open exchange of ideas and opinions to tangible change in how the government and members of society conduct themselves, greater openness will lead to little change in terms of stability.

Kenya stands as a recent and telling example. In the aftermath of Kenya’s contentious December 2007 election, pressure from the international community has been useful in pressing politicians on opposing sides to seek a compromise; however, many in Kenya feel that the threat of banning intransigent politicians and their families from traveling to the US or the EU (where many currently educate their university-age children) actually did as much if not more to push through change than the good counsel of concerned outsiders. The Kenyan private sector was also very public in criticizing the country’s political leadership, making a number of public statements and taking out full page print adverts. Its efforts were largely ignored by the squabbling political leadership. Meanwhile, vernacular community radio stations freely rallied mobs of youth to target people of other tribes, while hateful mobile text messages were in wide circulation.

There is much about the J-curve relationship between openness and stability that holds true. However, the slow, steady climb up the right side to greater stability with increased openness is perhaps too optimistic an analysis. Instead, it is possible to be quite open and very unstable, and where further opening leads to little further stability.

Therefore, the J-curve looks more like a Chinese soup spoon, steep on the left hand side but largely flat on the bottom. The ability to rise up to the gently upward sloping handle of the spoon – where increased openness leads to increased stability – requires overcoming a hurdle embodied by the existence stable and influential institutions. These institutions – such as fair and strong electoral commissions, honest judiciaries, pressure groups that can influence government action – enable openness, discussion and dissent to be channeled to political, economic and social change. Until these institutions are in place, many countries will find themselves swimming back and forth at the murky bottom of the soup spoon, sometimes being more open, other times more closed, but at all times not very stable.