International aspects of political development

International aspects of political development

Here I will elaborate on the topic in the last post, The Decline of Politics.

Democracy for any prize?

The degree of democracy possible without counterproductive effects in the form of instability depends on

1. Political development on the way up.

2. Political decline on the way down again.

It is important that the degree of democracy should always follow the maximum  level, which is possible without chaos, in the light of the political level.

Most third world countries are not yet sufficiently politically developped to implement democracy in the full western sense. This would lead to instability and will often be terminated by coups. To demand democracy from such countries is irresponsible!

Also China and Russia are not sufficiently politically developed to implement full Western democracy. To demand they should is also irresponsible unless of course it is a deliberate attempt to weaken them and so easier defeat them in the international competition! But a break down of effective government in such important countries would harm the whole World, not least economically!

We saw what can happen if democracy is enforced too early in Russia after the fall of Gorbatjov. The strengthening of the government under Putin was necessary. China would also have plunged into a chaos even worse, if the students had won in 1989.

But of course a country can also limit democracy more than necessary in relation to the political level.

_________

From the age of Enlightenment Western Europe and North America were ascending in political level, Southern Europe a bit later. The Third World much later. This culminated probably in the sixties and seventies of the last century. Since then the downward trend has been underway as described in the last post.

This means that Southern Europe and the Third World have not and will not reach the most developped states before the downward turn. Italy reached a new low point in the elections. “Two clowns” won more than 50 % of the votes.

The west inspires the rest. When the west declines, so does the rest.

The international competition for supremacy

There is one more threat to democracy. This one is valid for the big players on the international political scene. These countries are competing with each other for dominance and therefore their internal strength and thus political efficiency is important, so they don’t lose in the competition from the other powers.

This threat was not very relevant for the Romans after Zama. No opponents of any strength existed west of the Parthians. And this probably also is a part of the explanation why the internal chaos continued until just before Augustus put an end to the Warring States or Modernity phase or as Toynbee calls it, the Time of Troubles. As a single Roman general could subdue and eradicate whole states, the politicians and military leaders in Rome itself could afford the chaotic in fights much longer without fearing that outside forces would take advantage of the situation.

This was very different in the same period in the first Chinese civilization, where all the major powers were very strong and each had armies of one million troops. Here only the most effective states could stand the competition and the wars. Qin won the fight by being extremely well and harsh governed.

For our civilization we are somewhat closer to the old Chinese condition. Our Rome, the United States is not alone, but has competitors like China and Russia and soon maybe more. This means that it is imperative for the Americans to be well governed and effective.

This pressure for efficiency is another major threat to democracy. Here like with the other threats, it would be ideal to save democracy by strengthening the executive just as much as needed and no more. We don’t want to have the Qin solution with its brutal oppression! But if the Americans hope to continue as the "leading nation on Earth" they will have to strengthen government.

A World power cannot continue as a such, if the opposition sabotages the necessary decisions. Today the right wing Republicans, tomorrow under another president perhabs left wing Democrats.

Even more harmful could be the extreme anti-Washington sentiments. People whose dream is a decentralized state not ruled from Washington and the "political establishment" and instead want small communities ruled by "Christian" pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, anti- Obama care people and defended by small bands of individual desperados armed by the Rifle Association. Even a small approaching of this condition would imply a serious weakening of the United States.

 I guess not even the Tea Party movement or other right wing Republicans want the Chinese and Russians to win the competition for world hegemony?!

_________

NOTES

The smaller countries in the old continent do not anymore take part in the competition for world hegemony. Therefore they do not feel the external pressure making inner strengthening necessary. They could end like the greek city states. At a time representatives of four competing parties from  the formerly so well ruled Sparta were in Rome each seeking support for their cause in the chaotic political battles.

The EU is an attempt on the level of all European states at countering the trend. Create a common executive above the single governments. But this will fail as the decline within the states continues.

For the World it may make only a little difference who wins, the Americans or the Chinese. They may be approaching the same level of limited democracy, even though from opposite sides.

The decline of politics

Threats to democracy (see also Int'l aspects)

Many people have doubted my assumption that democracy should be replaced by an autocratic sort of an emperor. Of course this does not happen just because it has been the case in old Rome and other civilizations. It happens because of developments within our civilizations. And it is these developments which parallels those in Rome, and they could lead to the same result unless we take care.

There are more developments that in an imperative manner demand control to prevent instability, crises, chaos and suffering. This control could and should be exercised in a way that preserves a degree of democracy and choice instead of as in Rome be leading toward the unification and autocratization of world rule in the hands of one ruler.

I am talking of at least the following developments:

1. External chaos in the World. As described in http://polybios-2100.blogspot.dk/2012/11/the-american-presidential-election.html. This can take the form of terrorism. But it also has the form of wars, refugees, suffering because of misgovernment etc. Terrorism necessitates the leading powers to control outside countries. It can also be used as a reason to limit internal freedom.

2. Something which has been seen in earlier civilizations like in old Mesopotamia (salination of agrarian areas), but could be far worse in our case are ecological threats. Especially global warming can alter the Earth, lead to enormous streams of refugees and wars for inhabitable land like in the Mayan World.

 3. The decline of the interest of the public in politics as described in  La Condition postmoderne.

4. The decline of the media. Earlier the medias were the forth power controlling politicians and acting as organs of parties. Now it is more focusing on here and now scandals, sensations and simple gossip about irrelevant entertainment stars as described in Am Besten nichts Neues (2010) by Tom Schimmeck.

5. The dominance of the markets. They rule as an autonomous force ignoring everything for the shortsighted gain of money, thereby making wise and long sighted politics impossible and bringing about crises and devaluating whole nations as mentioned in http://polybios-2100.blogspot.dk/2012/10/the-nobel-peace-prize-2012.html

 6. The decline of politics itself. This is the subject of today’s blog-post.

7. Economic pressure from crises. It is important to see that this factor often has been seen to press democracy like in Europe in the thirties of the last century. But today the other factors work against democracy even without economic crisis. Of course economic strains will just further aggravate the situation.

But to today’s subject:

The Decline of Politics

DEMOCRACY OR STABILITY

Democracy  in the full sense of the word is impossible without a completely educated, informed and intelligent population. Without this it is necessary that rule comes from an elite in the form of a few parties. This elite is self-sustaining, recruits its own new members, produces state leaders and to a large extent rules the voters through various channels, not least through the media.

So true democracy is only possible with an ideal population, which does not exist. Even the best approximation, Scandinavia, has not been a real democracy. Total democracy without this enlightened population is chaos! The viable alternative to an enlightened population has been the part control from responsible party elites.

Great Britain, Scandinavia, Benelux, The USA, Canada and since WW2 Germany and Japan have all been examples of stable democracies, where an elite to a certain extent rules the voters.  They are or were still democratic in the sense, that there was a choice between the parties, even though these through the media to a certain extent controlled parts of the voters. This control was important, because without it extreme viewpoints would break into the political system and disrupt stable and long term policies. That is what is happening now. The control is loosened because of changes in the media and the population.

So what could be reached was not full democracy, but the best possible approximation. This should always be the objective, also under the present deteriorating circumstances.

The secret of political stability is the balance of forces in a society. The encompassing of the different societal interests within the political system. This is also very close to what could or should be called democracy. Rousseau defined democracy as the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. But this is not true. Stable democracy is the taking all important forces and interests in society into account and doing this from a long term viewpoint.

This demands the rule of responsible forces that are a) willing to compromise and b) are not too extreme.

Examples:

In old England the Whigs and Tories balanced each other. In many European countries in the 20th century the hearing of interest organizations and experts balanced the power of political parties at government.

In France in the 5th Republic the Strong president and the parliament balanced each other. The same is the case in the United States.

In the USA Democrats and Republicans also limit the power of each other.

Stable and mature democracy is characterized by the following:

- Hearing of groups and forces concerned by decisions to be taken by governments and parliaments.

- Stable party landscape.

- Parties with lasting attitudes, that did not change from day to day.

- Politicians willing to make compromises with other parties and societal forces.

- Loyal party voters.

- Party owned media beside responsible independent ones.

SYMPTOMS

These stabilities now become threatened in more ways.

1. Politicians ignore advise from the concerned people, groups and experts.

2. The emergence of populist and extreme groups with irresponsible extreme views disturbs the balances. This makes compromises with political forces and society groups impossible.

The American right wing represent the same phenomenon as the populist parties in Europe.

In Belgium the Flemish nationalists proposed that French-speakers should be expelled from Brussels! In the Netherlands and Scandinavia Islam is demonized as fascism.

3. Politics are not guided by long term  party attitudes, but by media storms and transient popular sentiments and opinion polls, as started by Tony Blair.

4. Populism comes not only from populist parties. Also politicians from the old parties use populist viewpoints. Ministers from the British government sound like a mob. Parts of the Republican party in the US are more and more uncompromising toward the Democrats making effective government impossible.

5. Young and inexperienced politicians reach high positions in Europe.

6. Parties become ruled from the top. The party leader is more important for the voters, the public and the media than the party program.

______________

In political maturity Northern Europe and North America have moved farthest. especially Scandinavia, Benelux and the UK. France and the United states to a lesser extent with their focus on the leaders of parties. Now we see the decline in all these states.

Southern Europe never became  as highly developed democracies. Italy had after WW 2 a long time a stable balance between Christian Democrats and Communists. This has since the 80es in a shocking way been dissolved into a chaotic party landscape culminating in the clown Berlusconi. And this before the onset of the economic crisis. Spain and Greece only regained democracy very late, and one must fear the effects of the economic strains today on their political systems. Countries in the Third World which reach democracy, seldom reach very mature levels before the tide could change backwards  here as well.

Since WW 2 Germany has emerged as an extremely mature  political system.  Even new protest parties like the Greens have become integrated in the stable responsible and responsive political system. Let’s hope the Pirate Party will not succeed in disturbing this!

So Germany is the last strong champion of a mature political Modernity. The USA is the champion of the movement towards a future after Modernity because it is a) characterized by the political decline and superficiality and lack of good public education and b) is the leading country in the World and inspires all the World.

THE ANSWER

In more countries the executive power is strengthened. Not least in the United  States where President Bush Jr. started abusing the Signing Statements to reinterpret laws passed by Congress, and changed law texts without the knowledge of Congress members before they are about to vote on them.

This was mostly as a response to terrorism. But it will also become a necessity in order to control the internal political instability. To make sure that stable and lasting long term policies are carried out without the continuous shifts brought about by popular sentiments, the press, the net mob and populist political forces. The uncompromising attitude from certain Republicans will make it imperative for Obama to rule through decrees.

This strengthening of the executive was what people like Caesar did in the corresponding situation in Rome.

It must be clear that a stronger executive is the best solution. But it must not become too personalized. This tendency toward personalization of power is also a part of political decline. And the executive must of course not become too strong. The idea was to preserve democracy, not to exterminate it.

The best solution would be a return to mature democracy. But this does not seem possible as politics is not an island. The other factors will still be declined even if politics reform to more stable levels. In an open market society it is not possible to control the public or the media. So the means must in the beginning be within politics itself.

So the answer to the threats to democracy gets somewhat contradictory. To save democracy, a responsible and responsive elite must limit it. Of course only limit as much as just needed. Cesar should not be replaced by Nero, but by a responsible elite. A solely personal rule is not better than dictators in the Third World. It is no long term solution. A genius can be followed by a jerk.

We will need a stronger executive under these conditions:

1. Be as democratic as possible.

A less educated population like in the USA is more vulnerable to seduction from the decaying parts of the media and politics. This will make further executive control and less democracy necessary. So better education is imperative to ensure a maximum of democracy. A such population can also act as a control over the executive.

2. Rule wisely, meaning: Respond and act responsively to all important groups, powers and needs in society in a balanced way. Act from a long term viewpoint.

3. Come from an informed and courageous elite rather than single persons.

4 Ahau - 3 Kankin - another 13 Baktuns passed - and the vampires are marching in

4 Ahau - 3 Kankin - another 13 Baktuns passed - and the vampires are marching in

Why this extreme interest in and fascination of the End of the World?

Of course the World does not end on this date, just as it did not end the last tine, 4 Ahau, 8 Cumku, 13.0.0.0.0 in the year 3113 BC, August 13.

Films and modern folk myth with more  or less superstition have focused on the Baktun change in the Mayan calendar. Before that it was of course the Millennium change. And the whole 20th century has seen many expected endings of our World.

Good, bad or catastrofic films depict many scenarios of endings from floods to comets. Fortunately the Earth is often saved by American heroes!

Why this interest in the End? We saw another belief in an ending 1000 years ago in Europe and also around the birth of Christ in the Middle East. I think these anxieties are not simply caused by round dates in our or the Mayan calendar.

Rather such fears tend to occur around the birth of a new high culture or civilization. The Middle Eastern or Oriental civilization started at the time of the birth of Christ. Our civilization around 1000. Another example of such apocalyptic fears was in the beginning of the second Chinese civilization around 200 AD. See http://polybios2100.blogspot.dk/2012/10/civilizations.html?m=1

But such fears could also be a sign of the beginning stagnation and later decline of a civilization. That is what I assume is in the play now. The era of modern scientific thinking is the last stage of the peak of a civilization. The tendencies toward superstition and new religiosity are already clearly to see in the horizon. It is not so that all phases of a civilization or high culture are non-religious and non-mythic in thinking. That is only the case in the later centuries culminating in the around 3 centuries of the Modernity. Here mythos is effectively replaced by logos, the logical scientific thinking.

This phase has not in any of the older civilizations lasted forever. The extremely logical, all too clear thinking becomes insustainable. Superstition and religion or just mythical thinking begin to return. In our case this is evident in phenomena like role plays, the Gothic scene and the interest in the supernatural. Vampires fill films and song texts and are used by some as a religious substitute.

At the same time we may have a vague feeling of the approaching end of not just the era of logos, but also the 1000 year era of cultural explosive creativity.

And because of the return of mythos this vague knowledge manifests itself in the form of apocalyptic myths. The only thing that seems to prolong the era of logical thinking is the fantastic progress resulting from scientific thinking, not least in information technology.

But the myths are already creeping into the Internet....

he Middle East, Rome and the United States

The Middle East, Rome and the United States

As reaction to the observer status granted to Palestine by the UN, Israel has decided to establish another settlement. This will separate the Palestinian area on the West Bank in three parts: North, South and East Jerusalem, areas without direct connection. The parallel to the Bantustans of the Apartheid Regime could not be more clear.

Today I will point to clear parallels between on the one side Rome and the Middle East 2000 years ago and on the other side the United States and the Middle East today. The Middle East then and now hosts the same civilization, the one I term the Oriental-Arab. The Jews have changed their role between the two situations. Two thousand years ago they were an integral part of the Oriental Civilization and culture. Now they are a part of the Western Civilization.

At that time this Oriental Civilization was in naissance, now it is old and  fighting for survival in the light of increasing Western dominance. Today parts of the populations have been culturally  assimilated like the whole of China and India today, see http://polybios2100.blogspot.dk/2012/10/civilizations.html. This is the case for the middle class and city populations in more states in the Golf and North Africa and indeed Iran.  But still considerable parts of the Middle East resist the West. Not only originally nomadic and backward rural populations like Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan’s North West, Sudan and Somalia, but also the rural and poor parts of the  populations in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria and yes, Iran are still keeping up resistance. This can be seen on the support for president Morsi and the two Islamist parties in Egypt right now.

The resistance not only arises because another and different civilization is taking over militarily, politically and culturally. Also the fact that the West now is in its modernity, where the Middle East has left this phase 900 years ago. This distance in historical phase adds to the feeling on both sides of dissimilarity. In Roman times the Romans were in their modernity, while the Middle East was 700 years before its own.

Rome handled the Orientals in a very clumsy manner. Roman leaders, businessmen, publicans and sinners robbed the populations.

In 88 BC king Mithridates of Pontus  in one day slaughtered 80.000 roman businessmen. This was aided by the local populations in the East. The attack on the World Trade Centre by Bin Laden is a clear symbolic equivalent. In both cases it expresses the contempt for a world power obsessed by the thirst for money.

Later the Jews stood for much of the resistance. The Macccabeans had thrown the Hellenistic "western" Seleucids out in 165 BC. But the westernization had continued in parts of the population in Jewish Palestine. Others opposed this like the Zealots. In the meanwhile  the Romans entered.

Now the extreme of the Jews assumed the same role as the Islamic terrorists today. The merciless fight against the "western" Romans started. As the Jews were already widespread and became even more so, the fight engulfed large parts of the eastern Mediterranean. This continued and flared up again   and again in the Jewish war in 66-70 and the Bar Kokhba revolt 132-136. And not least in the Diaspora revolt 115-117 AD. Hundreds of thousands of Romans were killed.

That the Jews were the front  runners of the Middle Eastern or Oriental civilization might sound a bit odd today. But it is only because today the Jews are totally culturally assimilated in the West. Israel is with some right seen as a western occupation force in the heart of another civilization. Two thousand years ago the Jews were a part of the emerging civilization which I term the Oriental-Arab. Even though this civilization in the first 600 years in religious matters was dominated by Christianity and Parsism and then by Islam, it really is one cultural unity. The Jews has until the last couple of centuries been a part of this civilization too. Only with the dominance of our civilization have they become a part of the West.

As the Jews, so also Christianity was originally a part of the Oriental civilization and culture.

Beware America. Learn from the experience of the Romans. Too aggressive policies toward the opposition in the Middle East and especially support for the irresponsible Israeli government will just increase the opposition from the non-assimilated people in the Middle East and increase the support for these groups and thereby terrorists.

The Republicans must stop to like Netanyahu, just because he is no friend of Obama and because he is right wing just like us.

The invasion of Iraq was a fatal error. Saddam Hussein did not support Bin Laden, and he did not have weopons of mass destruction. Instead he stabilized the many different peoples in Iraq. And he was secular and thus a westerner! Now the anti-western extremists are loose. Syria will no doubt end  the same place, when Assad falls. Afghanistan is not won by the west and cannot be. Rather if the USA and its allies leave, the Taliban will come back.

So to keep control over the terrorist threat, the USA will have to control Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely.

Yemen and North-western Pakistan  is on the road in the same direction. Syria will sooner or later also have to be put under American control. And what about northern Mali? And later perhaps North Sudan or Somalia?.

America is by the fight against terrorism being forced to control all these states. They will be de facto American provinces. At the same time this will increase opposition from the not assimilated like the terrorists  and even bring support for these people  from the more westernized populations.

This development is hard to handle. The West cannot just let areas of the size of Europe become terrorist nests. But with a more balanced policy the USA can hope to keep the extreme anti-western sentiments from spreading to population segments which were about to become westernized. Disappointment over the chaos and lack of economic development after the Arab Spring can quickly cool the interest in westernization. Unwise American policies would add considerably to this.

Already alone the cultural influence from the west is inspiring opposition. There is no need to let wrong policies aggravate things further.

Roman history shows the extent of the possible resistance from the Oriental civilization. The only hope for the Americans of avoiding the same scale violence, is that the oriental civilization was then in the beginning about to rise. Today it is old. Therefore the resistance might fall more quickly. But one-sided and narrow minded American policies backing Israeli right wing governments can prolong the resistance from parts of the Middle East. This will inevitably lead to more terrorism.

So clumsy, oppressive and pro-Israeli polices will increase the resistance toward the West in the Middle East. Resistance will lead to internal state splitting and chaos and lead to more terrorism. This again will force the Americans to intervention and invasions, More and more countries will come under direct American control. Two thousand years ago Rome also had to occupy more and more countries because of rising chaos, whivh they had themselves contributed to. There was even that times version of Somali pirates operating from Asia Minor.

The occupation and direct control of opposing  countries may seem good, but it will be controlled states with unwilling populations. It may be better with less direct control over culturally assimilated populations.

You do not want to figure as the publicans and sinners in a future Bible. Unless of course like some of those in the past you repent.