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.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
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.
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Trump, Orbán, Kaczyński and Netanyahu
Trump on trade with China: "Listen you m-----f------, we're going to tax you 25 percent!"
He also claimed that the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. Hillary Clinton was the worst foreign minister ever etc. etc.
Netanyahu recently accused the Palestinian leader Abbas of directly urging Palestinians to attack Israelis with knives. And worse, he claimed Hitler only started the Holocaust after being persuaded to this by the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Kaczyński, now de facto leader of Poland, claimed that there is a secret plan to destroy the Polish nation by filling the country with Moslem refugees bringing diseases and parasites.
Such obviously absurd viewpoints from leading politicians is a bad omen for the future of democracy.
That the tendencies have been apparent for some time also in West Europe is no secret. The large influx of Syrian refugees is not causing, but reinforcing the tendency in Eastern and Western Europe. But the development is universal.
The simple figure of a parable rising to and then decreasing from a top illustrates the development of mature democracy in our Western civilization.
Of course the real curve is not as smooth as in the figure. Economic, military and political crises have resulted in large deviations. We were at the top-point or rather top-plateau perhaps in the 60s and 70s. Since then the decline has set in. No matter the deviations the overall averaged developmemt follows the pattern of increase, top and decline in level of maturity.
Seen apart from the 30s and 40s North America and West Europe have followed the curve quite closely. In contrast, because of their position east of the Iron Curtain East European countries had the deviations continued until Gorbatjov.
Since then these countries have come back on the main track, following West Europe with a certain time lag. But now almost before they have reached the peak, the general decline sets in, and some of these countries revert to more undemocratic forms. Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary with their geographic and political proximity to West Europe and their pre-war development had the strongest democratic traditions, also under Sovjet dominance. Now even these countries show worrying signs.
Hungary has become quite authoritarian under Orbán, it maltreats refugees and builds fences against them.
Slovakia broke out from Czechoslovakia partly because it was not as mature as the Western part and wanted to oppress the Gypsies and the Hungarian minority. Now the Czech Republic seems to follow the Slovaks in its attitude to the refugees.
Despite economic progress and almost complete lack of Middle Eastern refugees the new government in Poland won the elections by abusing a postulated threat from Syrians. The ideal is Orbán's Hungary.
Despite their sad recent past the post-Yugoslavian Balkan states almost seem like the most mature states in East Europe except for the southernmost part like Kosovo which seems on the way to chaos before it ever reaches a functioning democracy.
But it is important to keep in mind that the picture in East Europe may be complicated by the possible emerging still rudimentary East European civilization.
Turkey may be the same story of decline. Erdogan builds a giant palace for himself, destroys the peace process with the PKK, reduces press freedom and democracy. Latin America could follow a similar path of late reached maturity with a short duration.
As often said the right wing parts of the US Republicans are a sign of the same decline as we see in Europe.
The developments in Israel more and more turning towards the right and towards racism are not only a political development per se, but as we can see in the absurdities from not only the prime minister, but in broad sections of society, it also represents the decay. New irresponsible settlements are approved all the time. Even Israeli Arabs are treated and defamed as second class inhabitants, Communists and terrorists.
Of course the political decline needs not only manifest itself as a movement on the right wing. Also left wing and even centrist populism as seen not least in southern European countries are parts of the tendency.
All these developments are of course worrying in themselves, as they are damaging national policies and continuity. But when they affect countries with international importance it is directly dangerous. Just a couple of well-known examples which do not need elaboration:
- Turkey's new war with the Kurds compromises the fight against ISIS.
- Israel's policy can have disastrous consequences.
- Worst of course are the developments in the worlds leading power, the United States. If one of the very few countries with the ability to calm the world itself gets unstable, we are in real trouble.
As said elsewhere, in pre-decline times democracy was stable. Self-sustained responsible political parties through the press, radio and TV guided the different groups within the societies who identified themselves with them and voted for them. Governments cooperated closely with experts and affected groups of society, and matters were debated seriously in the public sphere. Now mob rule replaces this, see my posts "The Decline of Politics" and "Decline of Modernity".
China and Russia are better equipped to resist the decline. The Chinese collective and meritocratic leadership is supplementing itself and finds leaders from its own circle. Of course decline may also affect Chinese politicians as the leading circles get richer and more influenced from abroad. Maybe it was not a bad idea to ban communist party members from attending golf clubs.
In the old USSR the intelligent leadership under Kosygin, Brezhnev and Gromyko could have developped in the same direction as the present Chinese party top. But the rigidity and lack of adaptability lead to the necessary but perhaps too quick changes under Gorbatjov and the resulting disintegration and chaos under Jeltsin. Putin with great skill succeded in rising Russia again. And his continued leadership gives a new stability replacing that of the old rule of the Communist Party. The stability can continue, but this demands that a way of transition can ensure that Putin is followed by people with similar abilities. This is an absolute condition.
In this respect one-man-rule has the same weakness as democracy: a capable leader can be followed by an idiot. But it takes longer time.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Feeding the hawks
If Russian bombs hit the moderate opposition in Syria, then the Russians must stop this part of their campaign. They attack the wrong people and drive them into the arms of extremists.
It increases once more the tensions between the United States and the Russian Federation. Tensions that seemed to be falling. The cold war scenario threatens again.
And working against one of the most intelligent and reasonable US presidents for decades instead of cooperating is indeed unwise and in the medium and long run counterproductive almost no matter the goal.
Sooner or later a declined Republican party will retake the presidency with far reaching negative consequences for world politics. Is a Donald Trump better than Obama?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)