Decline and Power

 It is no secret that I have had a weak hope that our civilisation might avoid the rapid degeneration experienced by our predecessors. I have argued that despite its numerous crises, the Song Dynasty could inspire us in this. But nothing suggests that we will alter our corse. Thus, for now I will lay aside my utopian wishes for a prolonged  modernity and a postponement of our decline. I will only look at the facts.

 

As said earlier, both division of countries and organisations, populist politicians, polarisation and indeed more and more authoritarian and autocratic regimes are parts of the decline. But these possibilities or symptoms per se have different consequences for the survival and power of countries. And these consequences further depend on the specific handling and implementation of policies. Context, especially demography is yet another crucial variable. And not least, the Consequences depend on the qualifications and the durability of rule of groups and their leaders. In the following we will look briefly at the effects of the manifestations of the decline in five nations and unions.

 

As usual, I will focus on the biggest players. I will start reusing parts from the last post about the EU and India. The EU faces the risk of gradually becoming a failed union as populist nationalists win influence and try to change the union into a bunch of petty states. The rift between East and West Europe can only add to this development which could break the inner spine of the union. The obvious reaction to the present world situation would be if the European nations moved tight together. The populist nationalist traitors will instead divide it and thereby let it be ruled from abroad. If the Rassemblement  National wins power, then even the Franco-German CPU will be damaged.  And if Trump and a degenerated Republican Party returns to power, the EU could also begin to lose its outer skeleton. Thus all in all, for the power of the European Union the symptoms of the decline could have detrimental consequences.

 

As said in earlier posts, India is demographically and politically heterogeneous and must be ruled in a way that perhaps is authoritarian, but which should also encompass all the biggest political and religious segments of its society. For several years this  has not been the case. Instead we have seen  a narrow almost autocratic rule. This is perhaps the main manifestation of the world wide decline in India. As a result, large parts of population and politics feel left out. As said, the Moslem part could become attracted further into the civilisation in the Middle East.  Clearly, such policies will weaken the cohesion and strength of India, cf. my last post. Thus, like the EU, India’s prospects have also been diminished because of the decline.

 

Russia is a completely different case. Here we have a westernised segment of civil society which follow the course of our modernity. This segment is presently losing influence. Corresponding segments also exist in the other East European countries, and here they are bigger. But in Russia the majority of the people and politics is partly beyond the European, now global civilisation. The East European Civilisation with Russia is now in a phase where we were 1000 years ago. This is not meant as an indication of backwardness. One might also say that this civilisation owns the future. Russia has for centuries been confronted with strong powers in our civilisation. The strategy employed since Peter the Great has been and still is to build a defence segment, which is “Western” in technology, structure and function. You could say that a country from one civilisation has created a military-industrial complex in the style of another. This is necessary for a country which otherwise would be difficult to defend because in principle it is a primordial feudal world confronted with an advanced alien world in a more “developed” stage. Thus, the term “decline” is irrelevant for the real power of Russia. But as we have seen earlier in history, the present pressure from the outside seems to unite Russia and increase its resilience.

 

Let us now look at the United States and China.  Are they like the EU and India also weakened by the political decline? First the United States. Here the degeneration shows itself as a more and more chaotic fight between extremely polarised parties which even compete in influencing the judicial system and other supposedly neutral institutions. This is coupled with extreme paranoia against the other party and against foreign powers. The same happened in Rome two  millennia  ago. Obviously all this can only weaken the cohesion and power of America. As I have often said, the Romans could afford such conditions because they after the abandonment of the Hellenised East had no serious opponents. Present-day America is not in this situation. It has both China and Russia as serious competitors. The effects of the inner chaos in America can only partly be mitigated by the enormous industrial and military strength. And the  strength in these fields could also be undermined by the decline.

 

Thus, the fate of the United States is determined by a) how much its political system deteriorates. Here a period of Democrat rule slows the downward move, while Republican rule accelerates it. It is no wonder if enemies of the United States prefer a Trump presidency. The other factor which determines the fate of America is b) the strength of its foreign opponents.

 

China experiences an opposites version of the political decline: autocratic rule. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage for its power? This question is not that easy to answer. It depends on the qualities of the leader and the duration of his or her rule. If he makes mistakes, or he is too dictatorial and only represents a narrow set of opinions, society and politics can be split. This could lead to a shortening of his rule. Another important factor for the long term effects of an autocratic rule is the succession. Is the successor who inherits absolute power, a capable leader or not?

 

But also an autocratic leader can temporarily unite and strengthen China through coercion and police forces. This is the present situation. Thus, for now as opposed to America, Europe and India, China is strengthened by its manifestation of the political decline. The main explanation is that China is  more homogeneous than the EU, India and the United States. This in itself gives better cohesion and also makes the nation easier to govern even without too much force. Of course the advantage for China will last only as long as the present rule can be sustained. It can suddenly or gradually be changed by suppressed opponents. What this would mean for the power of the country depends on a) the smoothness of the change and b) what kind of rule follows. A more collective rule could possibly ensure greater sustainability and continuous growth in power of the country unless it is too lenient.

 

In conclusion, right now political decline weakens America and strengthens China. The balance shifts to the advantage of the latter. But a new political situation in China could change this for worse or for better.