South Africa's passive revolution and informal working-class politics in a global context

South African democratization offers a unique opportunity to discuss the persistence of racial and class domination after revolutions. Through a breathtaking ethnography of four residential areas, Paret shows how racial inclusion has empowered the poor but reinforced and stabilized many aspects of racial stigma and economic exclusion. Based on an analysis of these contradictory transformations, Paret challenges existing arguments by stating that a passive revolution can culminate in a hegemonic social order if it also involves "fractured militancy". I bring in the Turkish case to point out that a passive revolutionary route can lead to hegemony through non-fractured militancy too. I call for additional comparisons to reach conclusive statements about other general characteristics of passive revolutions as well. A similar rethinking of theories of poor people's politics is also necessary, given unresolved Fanonite questions Paret grapples with throughout the book.