Old Europe provides the world with a regional example of national stability, and such stability is as the saying goes, "there are things that do not change". What then, does a typical European Community look like? The answer, given by certain British TV series, is the Italian ability to organize, the German resilience, the French humility, the Belgian imagination, the Dutch generosity, and the Irish intelligence. This is not just the difference in individual characteristics, but also that of the nations. Despite experiencing the tides of the times and the great institutional changes, little has changed. The characteristics of countries, societies, politics, nationalities, communities, and interest relations remain the same as in the past, and this is exactly the most important internal stable structure of a country under various political packaging.
The emphasis on the structure is the proposition of structuralism. Any scientific research should go beyond the object itself and probe directly into the system and rules behind the phenomena and the whole situation. Social and cultural phenomena are not only about the objects and things, but also have other meanings behind them. Broadly speaking, structuralism attempts to explore the interrelationships through which culture and its social meaning are expressed. Therefore, relationship and structure, and the integrity led by structure, are the key to our exploration of the concept of stability.
If we look at countries from a structuralist philosophical perspective, we can find that the basic characteristics of national stability have not changed significantly in the course of history and revolution. Slow and steady economic growth, the basic system of a free market, society with no structural changes, the constantly improved welfare system, the superiority of legal position, freedom of the media, stable political system with moderate social evaluation； all this is what a stable state is all about.
It is worth noting the interrelationship between the aforementioned stability characteristics.
Slow economic growth means that there will be no major changes in the social environment; the gap between the rich and the poor is controllable, the cultural pattern and tendency are stable, the conflicts of interest structure caused by development are easily controlled, and the financial system will have fewer problems. That alone saves the government a lot of work and trouble. The free market system is simply market space. Spatial determinism is the view that ANBOUND has always favored, which is also the key to the success of the fiscal and monetary policy. Without markets, everything is in vain. The government should not intervene where the market can manage itself. This is a historical experience, and it has been successful most of the time. The structural change of society is actually revolution and subversion, and it is easier to destroy than to build. In human history, there is much experience of destruction, but very little experience of construction. With the stability of the social structure, the possibility of cultural and wealth sharing will be preserved. Frankly speaking, the welfare system is a kind of welfare provision. The continuous improvement of this welfare provision can be regarded narrowly as the redistribution of wealth, but it can also be regarded as the creation of consumer space. The legal status is a kind of guarantee, social credit, and social measure. The society is bound to be chaotic without the law. Media and press freedom are limited in each country, but the difference lies in the extent and clarity. Finally, there is the political system and evaluation. It may be said that no one in any country is satisfied with the existing politics, which is determined by the differences between the desires of different social strata. Nevertheless, political stability is necessary and instability is something scary.
It is easy for everyone to talk about the reform, but in fact, reform must be based on the premise of stable structure, otherwise reform is like bringing society into an uncontrollable black hole. There are countless examples of the chaos created by radical reform. For example, at the end of the last century, China's policy of "price reform" was closely related to the Tiananmen Square Incident.
By contrast, constitutional monarchy in the British is often regarded as a poor model in classical politics because of its "incompleteness". The British describe themselves as "British democracy", arguing that "… we need a system that protects the things that are important in life and keeps them out of the hands of outsiders. We run a civilized, aristocratic machine of government, occasionally moderated by popular vote. Since parliamentary reform in 1832, we have gradually squeezed ordinary voters out of the system of government. Now we've got to the point where we only have them vote once every five years."
Behind the much-maligned stability of the system, what have they gained? The answer is the continuation of an empire. If counted from Elizabeth I, the empire has lasted 431 years and has kept Britain in the ranks of the most advanced nations in the world. Therefore, stability actually has a deeper historical and cultural meaning. Stability does not exclude reform, but civilization can only be achieved through stability. From the perspective of history, stability is civilization, which is an integral part of historical experience.
Therefore, stability can create the miracle of time and bring hope to the society.
Final analysis conclusion:
The development of every country is inseparable from stability, but the historical and cultural implications of stability are not easily known. From a historical perspective, stability means not only sustainable development, but also civilization itself.
