Step by step

England and Wales have voted to leave the EU. This is just one more sign of the decline of the old world order. It is one event in a chain of previous and future signs of a continuing chain of such events. That Mr. Trump has managed to come as far as he is now is another. At the same time such events are contributing to an acceleration of this decline. Trump as candidate for the "GOP" and the Brexit are two of the hitherto perhaps most important events of this kind. Two big steps among many smaller and bigger.

We may have reached a point of no return in the development of our modernity and our civilization. This Western modernity has seen the most cruel mass scale violence in world history, only approached by the first Chinese modernity in the Warring States period ca. 500 - 221 BC. But it has in its mature stage in the second half of the last century - at least in the northern hemisphere - also seen perhaps the most intelligent and balanced intra- and interstate policies in history, only paralleled by the second Chinese modernity in the Song Dynasty (960-1279).

Our case could have been the first and only possibility in the chain of big civilizations to break the pattern of modernities turning more and more chaotic and thereby necessitating a caesarian dictatorship. Through an immense historical knowledge and intelligence among historians, men of culture and science and politicians there was a theoretical chance of avoiding this destiny in our case, the Western Civilization.

The last century of modernities has in most predecessors been one of increasing chaos dominating more and more. That we have entered this phase has become threateningly clear in the 4 years gone by since I started this blog. Now it looks enevitable. We and the politicians should be prepared for a new world with new rules.

Of course different countries will follow the decline with different speeds. Small countries like in Scandinavia and the Benelux could quickly become banana republics. Southern Europe is also far on the way. The UK is the first major north  European country to go this far. Not only in the form of the result of the vote, but also in the low level of the political process and the role of UKIP. Other major players are clearly infected both in the form of new populists and in the form of populist policies from grand old parties. It looks as if the development is unstopable. At best it can be postponed. As said earlier Germany and China could be the most resilient bigger countries.

 That the  old world order was stable and rule-governed is not the same as to say that every power felt it to be just. For such countries any change may seem favorable. But the present change is not primarily one affecting the balance of power. It is one of changed or rather disappearing rules for behavior.

And the cause? Spengler would call the decline of modernities an intrinsic and inevitable element in the development of civilizations. Toynbee would admit that the development has characterized all previous civilization, but nevertheless has a cause. Which? Put in a very generalized form it may be:

The return of the margins or the marginalized.

Two versions:
1) Semi-barbarians from the border zones (Qin, Seldjuks, Aztecs etc.).
2) Internally marginalized people resenting an old "establissement". In Rome proletarians entering the legions, veterans etc. In the Song Dynasty we saw protests against the globalization reaching from Kaifeng to Bagdad.


Today millions of people feel threatened seeing their old industrial centers dying in competition from new technologies and global trade. Feeling humiliated by mega-cities and their condescending elites and politicians. Often threatened by social decline or badly educated, on low wages or social wellfare. Some living in depopulated areas loosing their young to the cities. Giving foreigners the blame, Moslems East Europeans, Hispanics, the EU, whoever.

These people feeling stigmatized as losers now take revenge by supporting populists who use them and their anger. This is the other way anti-civilized marginal forces return. Of course the establishments are not innocent. The marginalization of large segments of society is a major cause.

Contagion

The danger for democracy seems to be growing globally. In the developed world especially right wing populists gain increasing support. This is obvious for everybody. This leads to either opportunistic malfunctioning government or autocratic rule or both. And the remedy to control this would also be reduced democracy.

Just one more example of the development will be if Austria elects a racist president.

A crucial difference from the thirties in the last century is that the turn away from democracy then was the result of economic hardship. Today it comes from a general political decline. Voters and many politicians seem not to know and care enough for mature democracy. Of course people havingn lost their economic foundation are especially easy prey for demagogues, but the trend is mainstream.

Also worrying is the corresponding development in the less developped world. Here democracy has only been achieved over the last decades. But already now the trend seems to be reversing in some countries. Turkey is clearly moving back to authoritarian rule. The Philippines have chosen a man directly praising dictatorship and violence. Brazil is especially worrying. The chaos in this big and important country could also lead to a new dictatorship. One could fear that more countries in the less developed world could follow a similar path away from their short-lived democracy.

Obviously lack of long democratic tradition and economic problems can contribute to accelerating the process. But without the global trend so clear in the Northern hemisphere it would not be so ominous. As long as we had functioning mature democracies and not least the consensus that this was the ideal, there existed a colossal pressure on the southern hemisphere to try to reach the same level and ideal.

With types like the often mentioned Trump, Orbán, Kaczyński, Le Pen, Erdogan etc. in the north there is not much good example and ideal left, not any longer a consensus about a stable and responsible democratic government, to press the southern world to achieve, develop and maintain democracy.

As said earlier a stable democracy can only exist as long as the populations are guided by responsible politicians and media. When this guidance is don by the internet, mob rulers and populist demagogues a vicious downward spiral can start. And the contamination spreads.

Diplomacy or personal will

The liberation of Palmyra is just one of the results of the new constructive cooperation between Russia and the United States over Syria. This cooperation is an example of the still surviving elements of the stable old world order, which resulted from mutually recognized spheres of interest and rules for behavior: A moderated proxy war in the third world, pressure and strong statements from both sides, but de facto ignoring hysterical reactions in the press and above all patient step by step diplomatic activity. Much of the same elements also characterized the way to the brilliant nuclear deal with Iran. 

But we may now be entering the era of the Erdogans, Orbáns, Trumps and Le Pens with all the shortsightedness and inconsistency that this implies. With such people as leaders it could be easier  to strike a deal here and now without long negotiations. But it is equally easy to have misnderstandings and sudden changes of minds and policies being determined by personal animosities. The foreign policy of the Western democratic powers with their frequent changes of leaders could become especially inconsistent in such a declined political culture. 

The time of long term international stability could be replaced by lability based on transient changes of mood in the leaders and in the populations, the media and not least in the Internet.

The Greco-Roman world around 100 BC went through a similar transition. Instead of conflicts, wars and treaties between political parties with ideologies and between countries came power struggles and private deals between dominating men as so clearly seen in the triumvirates. Similar developments took place in other civilizations in the last century of their modernities. Just look at the Oriental world in the 11th century where the emerging sultans had a role corresponding to that of the triumvirs. We too are entering the time of the triumvirs. Sudden deals between leaders, sudden disruption of ties, sudden adventures.

In Rome because of the total dominance of this single power the triumvirs were all from the state of Rome. In our case they will be leaders from different big powers.

Stable longterm international relations could gradually become replaced by private deals and breaks between single leaders of the big powers.

Already before this phase we see international politics being disturbed by immature traits apparent in the eastward political and military expansion of NATO and the EU. And the 2014 Russian answer in the form of the ntevention in Eastern Ukraine. Such acts are unnecessary, insensitive and breaking the rules of avoiding provocations. The planned NATO missile shield mostly based in Eastern Europe is the continuation of these insensitive acts.

Such behaviors represent the often mentioned general political decline, here also manifesting itself in international politics.

Another result of this decline in foreign politics is a disappearance of the border between diplomacy and the media and in general the public opinion. The populist leaders merge with and lead the public opinion in their transient moods, and worse, the diplomatic activity will no longer have the freedom from interference needed to reach balanced solutions. The leaders and media will not distinguish between 1) symbolic power demonstrations or mere signals and 2) real threats or problems. What used to be semi-conflicts or games in preparation of and as part of diplomacy, will be perceived as serious threats or provocations demanding immediate action, not only as hitherto by the press, but also by the leaders.

Signals will be confused with reality.

The next step is the full transformation from foreign policies being governed by strategic thinking and diplomacy to a policy determined by the personal will of the rulers. The era of higher forms of foreign policies could sooner or later come to an end. 

Of course the impact of the will of leaders can be partly absorbed by the political and legal system in countries and unions where the power of the leader is clearly limited. But 1) in some countries like Hungary or Turkey these limits are being removed, and 2) where they are not, like in the case of the EU the political decline leads to the impossibility of making decisions.

In powers where the leader already has a constitutionally based strong influence on foreign policies like the United States, Russia and France, the impact from future presidents making personalized foreign politics will be immediate and strong. The emerging inconsistent personalized international relations can become a nightmare for experienced diplomats. 

New Facism or just chaos?

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.

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.

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.

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!