How to start a revolution without really trying

National Review, Nov 15, 1985 by Tom Bethell

(The Wall Street Journal assigned nine reporters to its six-part, post-earthquake "Nation in Jeopardy" series, and between them they covered several square yards of newsprint, reporting many interesting facts but not one touching on the underlying cause of the Mexican problem: the insecurity of property, which is continually exposed to the threat of expropriation. This is really what is meant by those who say, usually approvingly, that the Mexican revolution is "still continuing." Indeed it is.)

Foreign eligibility for U.S. aid is determined by GNP-per-capita statistics compiled by the World Bank. When they lose their eligibility, successful countries are said to "graduate." Three countries that graduated years ago are Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They are of great interest and importance because they all experienced land reform of a sort and they are repeatedly cited in the land-reform literature as great success stories, proving that land reform really does work. And critics of land reform must concede that economic progress in these countries has been perhaps unrivaled anywhere since World War II. What did this success have to do with land reform?

Again, the great problem with land reform is this: The government that imposes it enlarges its own power over citizens' lives. However well intended, this represents a step away from the rule of law. A ruler who can change the pattern of ownership with the stroke of a pen is more tyrant than lawgiver. If he can do it once, he can do it again. No property is then secure, as we saw in Iran, as we see today in Mexico, and of course in the Communist countries.

Land reform was imposed in Japan by decree of General Douglas MacArthur in December 1945--along with a new constitution and elections. The Japanese were not merely defeated, they were willing to accept "the American way" as the price of defeat. They could surely see that MacArthur was not seizing power for himself. He was not establishing a tyranny for his own benefit, but was intervening under circumstances that would not be repeated. Whereas Marcos, Duarte, and the Shah went some way toward undermining the rule of law in their countries, MacArthur imposed it on Japan. The Japanese accepted it, no doubt because they could see that the new system was designed to obstruct the arbitrary exercise of power, so that the future was likely to be more secure, thus encouraging the people to go about their business in a spirit of hopefulness. Furthermore, the system had evidently served the Americans well enough to defeat the hitherto invincible Japanese!

Peasants Forever

It was the same in South Korea, formerly a Japanese colony, with about 15 percent of its land owned by Japanese. (And these really were the archetypal absentee landlords.) Again, the Americans arrived, imposed elections and a new constitution, and restored the Japanese-held lands to Koreans. The Koreans for their part had no reason to believe the victorious Americans were seeking personal or political gain, and so they could anticipate that this external intervention would not be repeated.