In the current rightwing populism many see a danger for a return to fascism.
But seen apart from small groups like the German NPD, this danger is probably not real, at least not in the developped world. We are in another phase in history, a phase characterized by other political manifestations than we saw in the last century. We are no longer in what I have called mature modernity, but in late or declining modernity. See my post "Decline of Modernity". Mature modernity was characterized by long standing ideologies like Liberalism, Communism and Fascism. It may sound strange to call Fascism a sign of a "mature" modernity. But the word does not imply something good or bad. It is just a name for the fully developped part of modernity with all its good, neutral and bad phenomena.
The character of the three phases of a modernity of a civilization are determined both by the general tendencies of modernities and by the character of the civilization. I have earlier talked about the tendency for certain civilizations to invert to the opposite certain parts of their character during their modernity, typically mostly in the late declining part. We see old China and the West loosing their otherwise typical historical consciousness, dynasticism and elitism. And the Greco-Roman world in its modernity turn toward exactly these traits, which this civilization otherwise does not possess. After modernity the normal old traits come back.
The West like old Egypt and old China were politically and in other respects characterized by long term thinking, and planning ahead. The Greek-Roman civilization was more random with short-sighted decisions only serving the here and now purpose. This is part of the explanation of the somewhat chaotic picture of this civilization with a history marked by an infinite number of internal and external conflicts and wars.
It looks almost like it is the destiny of the Western civilization to approach the traits of this predecessor civilization more and more toward its late modernity: anti-elitism, anti-dynasticism and lack of historical sense. And in addition we see the same chaotic democracy and lack of long term thinking and planning.
These developments are one of the reasons why we cannot view Trump, Marine Le Pen and Orbán as new Hitlers or Francos. Even Hitler had his frightening grandiose very long term plans for the future. Franco's rule was stable for decades.
The new populists, right or leftwing, are opportunists and only thinking and acting for the immediate. The worst is that thiese traits infect the whole pilitical spectrum. Old respectable political parties with proud traditions also begin to behave like this. Politicians are only fighting for short term gains: winning over the public oppinion and catch voters. A media campaign or a shit storm can change politics. And worse, such politicians often promote and abuse degrading and xenophobic sentiments.
A functioning bureaucratic administrative system can to a certain extent secure a degree of continuity. But more and more we see politicians interfering with or abusing such systems. Often in the form of incessant changes and reforms or ad hoc measures after public outcries over single cases of bad treatment of a citizen.
It is in this light the new populist parties must be seen. The main danger is not new fascism, but the fact that the inconsistent short term oriented behavior is taking over main stream politics and this even more when populist parties are allowed to take part in governing. And politics conducted this way can have detrimental consequences. Limited planning, ever changing initiatives, crazy measures. Countries that are able to avoid this will have an advantage both internally and in relation to other countries. Perhaps, as said in the last post, a USA ruled by changing populists could in a random way through adventurous actions take over countries. But confronted with a determined well organized big power the United States could lose the competition for world leadership.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
We've Got a Bigger Problem Now
The results of one Super-Tuesday do not bring the Apocalypse. But together with other new phenomena it points to a frightening change in politics within and between countries and powers.
The decline of politics was predictable, but I had not foreseen that it should proceed with such a speed. It has been underway for a long time, but has suddenly accelerated over the last two years, partly furthered by the terror from the Islamic State, the related influx of refugees from Syria and the efforts by Mr. Trump.
1) Europe has seen a decisive turn to the worse. Right wing parties profit from the fear of refugees. East Europe sees the same racist and in addition new autocratic tendencies. Also the old hitherto responsible political parties in Europe are more and more infected by shortsighted populism. The EU is viewed with hostility, the UK could even be on the way out. And the whole Union is weakened by these developments and by general centrifugal tendencies to a degree rendering decisions almost impossible.
2) In the USA the Tea Party people and obstruction from the right wing in Congress already seen for some years was bad enough. Now we have Mr. Trump, who makes even Mr. Cruz look responsible. We can just hope there is substance inside even if judging from his oral behavior there is none. That a self-declared Socialist like Sanders wins so many votes in the Land of the Free is also a sign of the changes, even if he looks infinitely much more sympathetic than Trump.
The changes in the American political landscape are beyond anything seen before and cannot simply be viewed as the known occasional anti-establishment tendencies having popped up from time to time before. A type like Trump may not become president in 2017. But the way is now open for this kind of men. And also from outside the presidency such politicians can have a very obstructive and destabilizing influence.
3) Other countries typically, but not only in the Middle East, like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia are also affected by the decline inn both internal and external matters with unpleasant consequences for the stability inn their regions.
The only major bastions of institutionalized functioning stability left could soon be China and Germany. Germany is also on the wrong way. A limit to the influx of refugees seems necessary to stop parts of the population from turning to right wing racist parties.
Instability in a major power can lead to, but does not necessarily imply less power in the world. For competitors to the USA: do not expect advantages from its destabilzation. Its power is not as totally dominant as that of Rome 2100 years ago, but still is tremendous. The Roman picture of simultaneous competing leaders fighting each other, each conquering new provinces, is unlikely, but changing populist US presidents could launch rows of new adventures abroad both political, on the Internet and even military, destabilizing the world and swallowing new areas into the American sphere.
Through a Europe dissolving into particularism and right wing populism, a Unites States dominated by erratic irresponsible politicians and other countries behaving like children we may be entering a world much more chaotic than the one we know. A world where it takes much talent to navigate.
The decline of politics was predictable, but I had not foreseen that it should proceed with such a speed. It has been underway for a long time, but has suddenly accelerated over the last two years, partly furthered by the terror from the Islamic State, the related influx of refugees from Syria and the efforts by Mr. Trump.
1) Europe has seen a decisive turn to the worse. Right wing parties profit from the fear of refugees. East Europe sees the same racist and in addition new autocratic tendencies. Also the old hitherto responsible political parties in Europe are more and more infected by shortsighted populism. The EU is viewed with hostility, the UK could even be on the way out. And the whole Union is weakened by these developments and by general centrifugal tendencies to a degree rendering decisions almost impossible.
2) In the USA the Tea Party people and obstruction from the right wing in Congress already seen for some years was bad enough. Now we have Mr. Trump, who makes even Mr. Cruz look responsible. We can just hope there is substance inside even if judging from his oral behavior there is none. That a self-declared Socialist like Sanders wins so many votes in the Land of the Free is also a sign of the changes, even if he looks infinitely much more sympathetic than Trump.
The changes in the American political landscape are beyond anything seen before and cannot simply be viewed as the known occasional anti-establishment tendencies having popped up from time to time before. A type like Trump may not become president in 2017. But the way is now open for this kind of men. And also from outside the presidency such politicians can have a very obstructive and destabilizing influence.
3) Other countries typically, but not only in the Middle East, like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia are also affected by the decline inn both internal and external matters with unpleasant consequences for the stability inn their regions.
The only major bastions of institutionalized functioning stability left could soon be China and Germany. Germany is also on the wrong way. A limit to the influx of refugees seems necessary to stop parts of the population from turning to right wing racist parties.
Instability in a major power can lead to, but does not necessarily imply less power in the world. For competitors to the USA: do not expect advantages from its destabilzation. Its power is not as totally dominant as that of Rome 2100 years ago, but still is tremendous. The Roman picture of simultaneous competing leaders fighting each other, each conquering new provinces, is unlikely, but changing populist US presidents could launch rows of new adventures abroad both political, on the Internet and even military, destabilizing the world and swallowing new areas into the American sphere.
Through a Europe dissolving into particularism and right wing populism, a Unites States dominated by erratic irresponsible politicians and other countries behaving like children we may be entering a world much more chaotic than the one we know. A world where it takes much talent to navigate.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Decline or remedy?
I have earlier predicted, that we will see more and more signs of the political decline in the form of phenomena like populism, badly prepared legislation and not least obstructionism making administration and legislation difficult or impossible. And to contain and counteract this we will need stronger executive power.
At the same time I have criticized the moves toward greater governmental or even personal power in some countries as a sign of the same political decline. How do these forms of stronger executive power differ from each other?
Obviously the question is whether a strengthened government is a goal in itself to achieve power for certain persons or groups. Or it is a remedy to control and overcome the decline.
When the present leaders of Hungary, Poland and Turkey increase their control, it is a sign of the political decline as it is not necessitated objectively, but only serves to gain more dominance and power. When the present US president uses decrees or other means bypassing Congres, it is in order to manage the lack of governability resulting from the decline.
Of course often matters are not so clearcut as in these examples. When are obstacles for legislation strong enough to justify executive force? Which legislation is important enough? Also motives for stronger governments can at the same time be both governability as such and a wish for power. Worse, over time the two types of motives will tend to fuse more and more. This is clearly to be seen in the figure of Julius Caesar, who lived in a time corresponding to our 21. century.
At the same time I have criticized the moves toward greater governmental or even personal power in some countries as a sign of the same political decline. How do these forms of stronger executive power differ from each other?
Obviously the question is whether a strengthened government is a goal in itself to achieve power for certain persons or groups. Or it is a remedy to control and overcome the decline.
When the present leaders of Hungary, Poland and Turkey increase their control, it is a sign of the political decline as it is not necessitated objectively, but only serves to gain more dominance and power. When the present US president uses decrees or other means bypassing Congres, it is in order to manage the lack of governability resulting from the decline.
Of course often matters are not so clearcut as in these examples. When are obstacles for legislation strong enough to justify executive force? Which legislation is important enough? Also motives for stronger governments can at the same time be both governability as such and a wish for power. Worse, over time the two types of motives will tend to fuse more and more. This is clearly to be seen in the figure of Julius Caesar, who lived in a time corresponding to our 21. century.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Saudis and Iranians
There have already been many justified critical comments on the Saudi execution of a Shia cleric. Here I will not add much. Together with the severing of diplomatic relations with Iran it seems to be a deliberate irresponsible act of the same sort as those carried out by Turkey. Sacrificing internal coherence for other purposes. For Erdogan strengthening personal power. For the Saudis sabotaging Iran's integration into int'l politics.
The execution is morally wrong, and on the political level stupid. Anti-Iranian hawks in the West could have used the Iranian rocket program and the provocation by the Revolutionary Guard in the Golf to disrupt Iran's integration. But the Saudi action rightfully turns attention to the semi-barbaric nature of the leading circles in Saudi Arabia.
The adverse effects on the efforts to reach a political settlement in Syria and the fight against ISIS are obvious. But seen in Riyadh as of less relevance or even desired.
The rising ethnic tensions in Saudi Arabia already fueled by the intervention in Yemen will worsen still more. As with the result of the new oppression of the Kurds in Turkey the saudi kingdom faces ethnic tension and conflict. Whether this is a result of political decline as in Turkey or just political immaturity is not clear. It is probably both. It would seem less likely that Sheik Yamani as minister would have sanctioned such policies.
As said in other posts (see Ethnic Cleansing in the Arab World) during the last century the distributed patchwork-nations of the Oriental civilization have been and still are being transformed into Western type territorial nations with a wish for coherent territories. This process often involves ethnic cleansings.
Generalized to the wider Middle Eastern context the execution of the cleric and the resulting conflict with Iran and Shias elsewhere could contribute to the start of a new round of ethnic conflict and cleansing in the Middle East. This time between Shias and Wahhabis or worse Sunnis in general. There have already been attacks on Sunnis in Iraq and new tensions between Sunnis and Shias in Bahrain following the execution. We don't need Sunni-Shia conflicts aggravating and spreading to more countries. And we certainly do not need ethnic cleansing and streams of refugees in an area from Iraq to Yemen. The Middle East has problems enough already!
The execution is morally wrong, and on the political level stupid. Anti-Iranian hawks in the West could have used the Iranian rocket program and the provocation by the Revolutionary Guard in the Golf to disrupt Iran's integration. But the Saudi action rightfully turns attention to the semi-barbaric nature of the leading circles in Saudi Arabia.
The adverse effects on the efforts to reach a political settlement in Syria and the fight against ISIS are obvious. But seen in Riyadh as of less relevance or even desired.
The rising ethnic tensions in Saudi Arabia already fueled by the intervention in Yemen will worsen still more. As with the result of the new oppression of the Kurds in Turkey the saudi kingdom faces ethnic tension and conflict. Whether this is a result of political decline as in Turkey or just political immaturity is not clear. It is probably both. It would seem less likely that Sheik Yamani as minister would have sanctioned such policies.
As said in other posts (see Ethnic Cleansing in the Arab World) during the last century the distributed patchwork-nations of the Oriental civilization have been and still are being transformed into Western type territorial nations with a wish for coherent territories. This process often involves ethnic cleansings.
Generalized to the wider Middle Eastern context the execution of the cleric and the resulting conflict with Iran and Shias elsewhere could contribute to the start of a new round of ethnic conflict and cleansing in the Middle East. This time between Shias and Wahhabis or worse Sunnis in general. There have already been attacks on Sunnis in Iraq and new tensions between Sunnis and Shias in Bahrain following the execution. We don't need Sunni-Shia conflicts aggravating and spreading to more countries. And we certainly do not need ethnic cleansing and streams of refugees in an area from Iraq to Yemen. The Middle East has problems enough already!
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Turkey and Russia
Turkey just shot down a Russian fighter jet over northern Syria.
Why now? Was this a deliberate attempt to destroy a potential "threatening" alliance against ISIS? After all Russian planes attacking the Turkmen militia and flying near the border are indeed provocative for the Turks, but it is nothing new. Earlier fighter jets have not been attacked.
At least the Turkish military should have been restrained right now, where the powers could begin to collaborate in the fight against ISIS. The Russian plane could simply have been escorted back.
Or does Ankara regard the PYD as so dangerous that it will sabotage a joint fight against terror and a beginning peace process in Syria just to prevent the Syrian Kurds from being recognized as a part of it? Was it an attempt at diverting the attention away from ISIS to help Turkey's own interests?
Why now? Was this a deliberate attempt to destroy a potential "threatening" alliance against ISIS? After all Russian planes attacking the Turkmen militia and flying near the border are indeed provocative for the Turks, but it is nothing new. Earlier fighter jets have not been attacked.
At least the Turkish military should have been restrained right now, where the powers could begin to collaborate in the fight against ISIS. The Russian plane could simply have been escorted back.
Or does Ankara regard the PYD as so dangerous that it will sabotage a joint fight against terror and a beginning peace process in Syria just to prevent the Syrian Kurds from being recognized as a part of it? Was it an attempt at diverting the attention away from ISIS to help Turkey's own interests?
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Anonymous and ISIS
In the last post, Elaborations, I may have understated the importance of the third sphere, cyberspace, in the war with ISIS. Obviously they can not be removed from the groumd in the Middle East by the help of IT alone, but clearly the web is of immense importance for the group in its communication and propaganda to the un-integrated and marginalized young people in the rest of the world. Elsewhere I talked about the present close collaboration between the barbarians outside all civilizations (like notably ISIS) and what Toynbee called the internal proletariat in the form of marginalized people in the big cities and suburbs. This close collaboration, a newcomer in world history, is mediated through the new "Third Sphere" (see the post with this name), the Internet.
Therefore it is very good news that the group Anonymous has joined the fight against ISIS like earlier the Ghost Security Group. Attacks on the sites and accounts of the terrorists can disrupt their connections with and recruitment of disciples in the Western civilization and thus be a valuable additional front at the side of the military means.
This discussion points to a general point, which is obvious and not new: In all three spheres it is possible to fight using irregular means. In the political or public sphere it is possible to use non-parliamentary means like demonstrations and civil disobedience, and in the military sphere it is possible to use guerrilla warfare. In the third IT -sphere it is possible to use hacker-attacks. This allows a kind of guerilla-war in cyberspace from groups like Anonymous. But of course the cyber-sphere is characterized by the same declining tendencies as politics.
Turning back to ISIS, there is one positive impact of the horrible events in Paris: a beginning cooperation between the western powers and Russia. The joint efforts by France and Russia are good news. Now we need Russia and the United States to lay aside their competition and join in an alliance in this important fight.
Hopefully the extreme brutality of ISIS could thus lead to the good result of uniting all forces. France, Russia, the United States, Anonymous, everybody are welcome!
With a further generalization we may look at possible impacts of ISIS in the Middle East. As said in the post "Ethnic Cleansing in the Arab World" this region is in a transition. The remnants of the old are struggling to protect their culture. And the patchwork of Oriental nations are being transformed to western type teritorial nations. Often these processes happen through violence and ethnic cleansings. These developments have been utilized by ISIS.
But the group is behaving so barbaric that most Muslims should react with shock. As an Iranian journal wrote recently, both Shias and Sunnis amd all Madhabs would agree that ISIS has nothing to do with any form of Islam. Even the Wahhabis should agree in this.
In the long run it is to be hoped that the mentioned developments in the Middle East will end in a modern version of the Oriental culture. We must also hope that the process will happen with as little violence as possible. In its barbary ISIS may contribute to this by uniting many Moslems and showing the dangers if violence gets out of control.
In this way this insane group could have served one good purpose.
Therefore it is very good news that the group Anonymous has joined the fight against ISIS like earlier the Ghost Security Group. Attacks on the sites and accounts of the terrorists can disrupt their connections with and recruitment of disciples in the Western civilization and thus be a valuable additional front at the side of the military means.
This discussion points to a general point, which is obvious and not new: In all three spheres it is possible to fight using irregular means. In the political or public sphere it is possible to use non-parliamentary means like demonstrations and civil disobedience, and in the military sphere it is possible to use guerrilla warfare. In the third IT -sphere it is possible to use hacker-attacks. This allows a kind of guerilla-war in cyberspace from groups like Anonymous. But of course the cyber-sphere is characterized by the same declining tendencies as politics.
Turning back to ISIS, there is one positive impact of the horrible events in Paris: a beginning cooperation between the western powers and Russia. The joint efforts by France and Russia are good news. Now we need Russia and the United States to lay aside their competition and join in an alliance in this important fight.
Hopefully the extreme brutality of ISIS could thus lead to the good result of uniting all forces. France, Russia, the United States, Anonymous, everybody are welcome!
With a further generalization we may look at possible impacts of ISIS in the Middle East. As said in the post "Ethnic Cleansing in the Arab World" this region is in a transition. The remnants of the old are struggling to protect their culture. And the patchwork of Oriental nations are being transformed to western type teritorial nations. Often these processes happen through violence and ethnic cleansings. These developments have been utilized by ISIS.
But the group is behaving so barbaric that most Muslims should react with shock. As an Iranian journal wrote recently, both Shias and Sunnis amd all Madhabs would agree that ISIS has nothing to do with any form of Islam. Even the Wahhabis should agree in this.
In the long run it is to be hoped that the mentioned developments in the Middle East will end in a modern version of the Oriental culture. We must also hope that the process will happen with as little violence as possible. In its barbary ISIS may contribute to this by uniting many Moslems and showing the dangers if violence gets out of control.
In this way this insane group could have served one good purpose.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Elaborations
A couple of quick remarks to elaborate on the last post:
1) It is not a task only for the United States to "calm the world". Its dominance and power is big, but not sufficient to control the amount of global war and chaos. And the cyber-sphere, where the USA is absolutely dominating, is of most use in the developed countries so heavily dependent on IT. Real wars and terrorism in or from the third world must be controlled through military and diplomatic and also economic means.
And to calm matters in this context we also need especially Russia, but China and the EU aswell. And most importantly, it is necessary for these players to cooperate.
Presently as said it is of paramount importance to stop the war in Syria and destroy ISIS here and in Iraq. Both to reduce suffering and terrorism and to end the massive streams of refugees. The last factor is contributing to the failure of the EU, through increasing disagreement and racist populism, and this can be in nobody's interest, unless of course a goal is a further weakening of the European competitor on the int'l scene.
The EU is a bit like the so-called Vertical Alliances (vertical meaning north-south) in the old Chinese modernity, the Warring States period around 500 - 221 BC. Like in other modernities including the present, the countries competed and fought for hegemony. As the state Qin in the west became more and more dominating, the other states tried to make unions, at certain times under a common prime minister, to balance and counter the power of Qin. But these unions were again and again split because of disagreements and particular interests. Some countries broke out and made so-called Horizontal Alliances (west-east) with Qin. And because of this incoherence of the Vertical Alliances Qin won in the end.
The EU can be seen as a vertical alliance trying to counter the big powers in east and west, this time in a more peaceful competetion. As the Chinese predecessors the attempt fails because of incoherence, disagreements and particular interests, even to the extent that countries like Spain, Belgium and the UK could break up.
The EU is unlikely ever to be a serious player on its own in the world. But its dissolution could be a globally destabilizing factor or at least mean the absence of a valuable stabilizing factor.
2) Concerning my comments on government, it is not implied that one-man or one-party rule is the only remedy against political decline. As often seen, not least in the English history of the Whigs and Tories 1700 - 1900, a two-party system can also be effective. But in the present atmosphere and phase a certain level of organization and control is necessary. Obviously power should alternate between the parties through elections, but populists and desperadoes should be excluded from real influence.
This could be an alternative to the Roman civil wars in the last century before Augustus. As said elsewhere it is unlikely for a dominating power in our civilization to disintegrate to the level of civil war. But also a lower level of chaos in such an important country would be highly undesirable. Like in Rome competing politicians could try to use the world as an arena for their fights. There could be more wars like the one by the younger Bush in Iraq.
1) It is not a task only for the United States to "calm the world". Its dominance and power is big, but not sufficient to control the amount of global war and chaos. And the cyber-sphere, where the USA is absolutely dominating, is of most use in the developed countries so heavily dependent on IT. Real wars and terrorism in or from the third world must be controlled through military and diplomatic and also economic means.
And to calm matters in this context we also need especially Russia, but China and the EU aswell. And most importantly, it is necessary for these players to cooperate.
Presently as said it is of paramount importance to stop the war in Syria and destroy ISIS here and in Iraq. Both to reduce suffering and terrorism and to end the massive streams of refugees. The last factor is contributing to the failure of the EU, through increasing disagreement and racist populism, and this can be in nobody's interest, unless of course a goal is a further weakening of the European competitor on the int'l scene.
The EU is a bit like the so-called Vertical Alliances (vertical meaning north-south) in the old Chinese modernity, the Warring States period around 500 - 221 BC. Like in other modernities including the present, the countries competed and fought for hegemony. As the state Qin in the west became more and more dominating, the other states tried to make unions, at certain times under a common prime minister, to balance and counter the power of Qin. But these unions were again and again split because of disagreements and particular interests. Some countries broke out and made so-called Horizontal Alliances (west-east) with Qin. And because of this incoherence of the Vertical Alliances Qin won in the end.
The EU can be seen as a vertical alliance trying to counter the big powers in east and west, this time in a more peaceful competetion. As the Chinese predecessors the attempt fails because of incoherence, disagreements and particular interests, even to the extent that countries like Spain, Belgium and the UK could break up.
The EU is unlikely ever to be a serious player on its own in the world. But its dissolution could be a globally destabilizing factor or at least mean the absence of a valuable stabilizing factor.
2) Concerning my comments on government, it is not implied that one-man or one-party rule is the only remedy against political decline. As often seen, not least in the English history of the Whigs and Tories 1700 - 1900, a two-party system can also be effective. But in the present atmosphere and phase a certain level of organization and control is necessary. Obviously power should alternate between the parties through elections, but populists and desperadoes should be excluded from real influence.
This could be an alternative to the Roman civil wars in the last century before Augustus. As said elsewhere it is unlikely for a dominating power in our civilization to disintegrate to the level of civil war. But also a lower level of chaos in such an important country would be highly undesirable. Like in Rome competing politicians could try to use the world as an arena for their fights. There could be more wars like the one by the younger Bush in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)