Political stagnation


Political stagnation, decline, or decadence is a condition in which a nation, empire, political party, or alliance experiences adverse conditions, ineffective leadership, hesitation, stalemate, or loss of identity. Leaders may be unable to provide: social cohesion, an ideological programme, economic prosperity, morale, law and order, or progress.
The era may be marked by unstable coalitions and policy compromises, discontinuity of purpose, frequent changes of government, corruption, and denial. Conventional politics being seen to fail, there may be an increase in scapegoating, victimisation, rioting, rebellion, terrorism, attempted coups d'etat, assassinations, or other revenge missions. Leaders may see a foreign war as a way out of difficulties, as in the case of Austro-Hungary in 1914.

History of the concept

observed periods, following 'expansion to the limit', when 'the habit of subservience' generated 'lies, ruses and deceit', and possibly a 'split in the dynasty'.
According to Paul Kennedy, 'Great powers in relative decline instinctively respond by spending more on 'security' and thereby…compound their long-term dilemma.'
In the case of an ideocracy, Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn see self-destruction as a factor in ideological stagnation. The ideocracy may split into 'warring camps'. It may be ended by a military coup, as in Peronist Argentina. There may be a popular rebellion. The economy may stagnate, as demands exceed ability. There may be external attacks by other states which fear the spread of the ideology, A further possibility is peaceful erosion. A new generation matures which is less fervent and more tolerant of pluralism. Technological developments and artistic expression erode faith in the ideology. The leadership become a less-effective self-serving, careerist elite.

Examples

According to Bruno S. Sergi, Russia experienced 'transformative' leadership under Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Tsar Alexander II, Lenin and Gorbachev, but stagnation followed in each case. The USSR is said to have suffered stagnation between the early 1970s and its collapse from 1989 to 1991.
Iran under Reza Shah Pahlavi stagnated between 1945-1949 when it failed to deal with the communist threat. His son and successor Mohammad Reza Shah experienced, according to Andrew Scott Cooper, 'economic slowdown, corruption, youth rebellion, a revolutionary underclass, and pressure for reform'. The Shah relied on his White revolution, repression, and the oil boom, but these all failed to keep his regime in power.
John Callaghan and Steve Fielding say that postwar Britain suffered from 'pluralistic stagnation' between 1945–1979 when both parties endorsed the corporatist consensus.
In Israel adherence to the original socialist ideology, and fading hopes for a two-state solution, are factors causing stagnation according to commentators.