The reaction of President Obama and Hillary Clinton to the election of Donald Trump has been admirably conciliatory and mature. Especially after the numerous absurdities from Mr. Trump et al. As said "when they go low, we go high".
As I have written before, the grotesquely declined policies of Mr. Trump comes in addition to many years of decline of the Republican party. The very different behavior from the Democratic party is a good picture of the global situation. We are in a transition from Mature Modernity to Declined Modernity. In this transition period the old mature and the new declined forces live side by side. We have both Hollande and Le Pen, both Germany and Turkey, both Obama and Trump. Seen from the point of view of Mature Modernity Trump is an absolute disaster. But of course he does not alone bring about the disaster. He embodies the decline present already. His victory may have accelerated it a few years, but it has been underway and would have come anyway.
Since his victory much has already been said on the consequences from countless experts and comments and editorials. There is no need for many repetitions here.
The victory of Trump indeed heralds the coming end of democracy as we knew it. Its final change in to rule by the mob, and what is worse: the use of the mob by demagogues and autocrats like Trump and Erdogan.
There is only one concrete advantage to be seen, and that is in the short term. Foreign policies; the relations America-Russia may improve. The rigid habitual cold war thinking characterizing both Republican and Democrat hawks including Mrs. Clinton and much of NATO could find its end. Cooperation on Syria would may be be possible.
But in almost all other respects the new era is unwelcome. It must be deeply deplored. And we should still try to save what can be saved of the mature democratic forms of government by modifying them into more controlled forms able to avoid and control the dissolving forces. But maybe this is a naive dream except for a few countries. For the rest of the world we should face the new reality. And not just cry over the lost paradise.
Presently we have two measuring standards. That from mature modernity and that from declining modernity. Judging from the old standards the turn to Trump, Le Pen etc. is catastrophic. From the new standard they must be judged from their acts. Are they able to maneuver in the new conditions?
This does not mean that you have to be declined to deal with the new conditions. As said elsewhere Germany and China may soon be the only pre-declined stable powers. They could be quite able to deal with the new world, but only if they adapt to the new circumstances: the threat from the mob, demagogues and foreign chaos. The risk is rigidity and lack of this adaption. But lack of any consistency and stability is equally a problem for good rule benefitting a country and its strength.
Lack of both consistency and adaptability can be detrimental no matter the era. In light of rigidity an unorthodox figure like Trump could have an advantage. But unorthodox policies must be coupled with a certain stability. In a complex world like ours too shifting measures lead to badly governed and unorganized societies.
For the USA Trump is not the biggest problem. No the really big problem is a Republican party degenerated into rigid obstructionists and opportunists and Puritan fanatics. The sum of these groups mean lack of ability to both govern and be governed. This will continue after Trump.
In the few days passed since nov. 8. Trump has shown a certain moderation. Remains to see if this will continue. Present and post-Trump Republican leaders may not show any moderation, but press on with more right wing turns.
In light of this the remarkable restraint on behalf of the Democrats may not continue. Left wing populists will demand counter-reforms and obstruction of Republican presidencies and will want retaliations. In the worst case scenario the political climate will degenerate more and more. Incongruent political measures will be implemented by shifting presidents. Effective administration and rule will be difficult. Violent upheavals will accompany politics as the big tensions within the American society are carried out in confrontations on the street. The two political wings will both fuel their own supporters and aggravate tensions further. Probably periods of personal dictatorships will appear.
For int'l relations as said the short term results could be an end to the cold war and even a US contraction of sphere of interest. The present sphere encompassing all the world until 50 nautical miles from the coasts of China and Russia were too wide to allow a consistent defense anyway.
But it is almost a law of a warring states period like the present that the global power struggle will restart. This could be from both Democrats and Republicans. And if the intra-American tensions are channeled outwards against the outer world and played out here like the Roman 2000 years ago, the world has nothing good to await. But it is equally likely that the USA will weaken itself through the internal strife. The United States is removing itself from the position it had a few years ago when it looked like a gradual takeover of the world through culture and Cyberspace.
Needless to say that also on the smaller level inter-state conflicts will become more frequent when opportunist populists and autocrats like Erdogan rule. And this will easily again become proxy-wars when the global competition restarts.
So in sum the political decline in and between countries leads to badly run countries and conflicts between countries. Therefore the new condition is definitely bad, even if it when it becomes the normal condition should be judged by its own standards.
In the troubled times to come countries with institutionalized stability have an advantage. At least if they are not rigid and can adapt. We will see how the very stable Germany adapts to Mr. Trump. China also has its own stability. This shows that undemocratic ways of governments are an advantage if they are intelligent and through written or unwritten institutions have continuity beyond single leaders. As said elsewhere less democratic measures can be either purely for power-hunger or to ensure functioning government. Compared to an America torn apart and weakened by internal conflicts and misgovernment China will have a clear advantage.
As long as forces of the old world order still exist we may hope to delay the development of the new. But it may be too late since the 8. November 2016.
At the end of the era Caesar is waiting.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Friday, September 2, 2016
Trump, Catiline, Russia, China and Parthia
Because somebody is a contributor to the acceleration of the general slide towards political decline, it does not automatically imply that this person is the best able to navigate in the troubled waters he stirs up. Maybe he is just of the same limited abilities as one of the Roman predecessors, Catiline. In the first century BC this man tried to seize power as the head of a third force outside the two big political parties, the Peoples Party and the Optimates. Just like Trump is trying now. He contributed to the chaos leading to further civil wars. But he failed in his plans.
In the short term Trump could loose or win the elections. But he will certainly accelerate the World slipping into a new unpredictable era ruled by the personal will of populist leaders. If he is not able to understand or navigate in the new world, other more able leaders will reap the harvest.
So you do not have to be good at navigating in a declined world, just because you embody this dcline. On the other hand you do not have to be declined yourself to have this ability.
No matter who will win the American presidential elections we may as well prepare for the coming post-stable era. An era which could last from a half up to a whole century.
The fueling of the new cold war between NATO and Russia may prove to be a wrong priority for the western countries. The internal lines behind the front could be crumbling as populists and populism gain power and influence. In the short and possibly intermediate term they may have other agendas than to have conflicts with Russia.
The focus can later turn back against Russia with sudden changes of mood. But for now it may be safer for the West to withdraw from expansion and military building up and instead just concentrate on keeping in order the results of the already big earlier expansions after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
But in the long term the tensions between East and West are likely to reemerge. It is remarkable how longstanding and deep this conflict seems to be. With short interruptions it has lasted since the 16th century. And in contrast to now long time forgotten conflicts between countries like Germany and France it has risen again even recently. This could be a sign of a deeply rooted opposition between two fundamentally different civilizations. As such it may resurface from time to time alongside shifting alliances.
Earlier civilizations hav most often at the end of their modernity reached a condition with a de facto emperor (no matter the title) with dictatorial status at the head of all the countries in the civilization. Rome, Qin, Babylonia, Aztecs. I have earlier written that the amount of chaos that is possible to sustain or can be afforded in the leading power with ambition to subdue the rest, depends on the strength of the others. In old China the other powers were for a long time strong. This necessitated an extremely strong centralization and degree of order in the winning power Qin. In old Rome the other countries were powerless afther Hannibal. Therefore the Romans could afford an extreme degree of internal chaos. I have also written that the Americans are in an intermediate position between these extremes. They cannot afford a degree of chaos on the level of old Rome. That is for the Americans the danger that comes from types like Danald Trump. A more organized and stable China could win.
But will our world ever get united under one power?
The competitors are clearly China and the United States. Russia is for the time being on the defensive, at least globally seen. When looking at predecessor-civilizations we see a couple of examples of modernities not ending with a united world. In the first Mesopotamian civilization Hammurabi and his first successors did not succeed in conquering the southern Sealand. The Oriental world was still disunited under the Seldjuks. These deviations from the general rule had their specific reasons. In our case main reasons would be the cost and dangers of modern wars or even conflicts disrupting global trade.
Concerning Rome we nay learn from a broadened perspective. Rome never conquered the whole known world. The Parthian Empire was a very near and ever-present neighbor, and it was very able to resist. In fact the two reached a balance of power. Perhabs Parthia could have been conquered if the Romans had had a lesser degree of internal strife.
Also, Parthia was not a completely different world. Both empires were culturally largely Hellenistic. Parthia gradually became more Orientalized, but so did Rone. In many ways it could have been a natural end to sbsume all Hellenistic parts of the world from Gibraltar to the Indus under one power; the chaos in Rome may have been the factor stopping this development.
Our version of a later not united post-chaotic world could perhaps be the world divided between 3 powers with each their sphere of interest. The United States and China dividing the Western civilization between each other. Each de facto cntrollng their parts. And Russia in a third sphere gradually becomming more culturally distinct and different from the rest.
But the way to this could be filled with trouble. Gradually though the three powers will calm their spheres of influence and agree on the borders between these spheres. At the end could come the global
Pax Americana, Sinica et Russiana
In the short term Trump could loose or win the elections. But he will certainly accelerate the World slipping into a new unpredictable era ruled by the personal will of populist leaders. If he is not able to understand or navigate in the new world, other more able leaders will reap the harvest.
So you do not have to be good at navigating in a declined world, just because you embody this dcline. On the other hand you do not have to be declined yourself to have this ability.
No matter who will win the American presidential elections we may as well prepare for the coming post-stable era. An era which could last from a half up to a whole century.
The fueling of the new cold war between NATO and Russia may prove to be a wrong priority for the western countries. The internal lines behind the front could be crumbling as populists and populism gain power and influence. In the short and possibly intermediate term they may have other agendas than to have conflicts with Russia.
The focus can later turn back against Russia with sudden changes of mood. But for now it may be safer for the West to withdraw from expansion and military building up and instead just concentrate on keeping in order the results of the already big earlier expansions after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
But in the long term the tensions between East and West are likely to reemerge. It is remarkable how longstanding and deep this conflict seems to be. With short interruptions it has lasted since the 16th century. And in contrast to now long time forgotten conflicts between countries like Germany and France it has risen again even recently. This could be a sign of a deeply rooted opposition between two fundamentally different civilizations. As such it may resurface from time to time alongside shifting alliances.
Earlier civilizations hav most often at the end of their modernity reached a condition with a de facto emperor (no matter the title) with dictatorial status at the head of all the countries in the civilization. Rome, Qin, Babylonia, Aztecs. I have earlier written that the amount of chaos that is possible to sustain or can be afforded in the leading power with ambition to subdue the rest, depends on the strength of the others. In old China the other powers were for a long time strong. This necessitated an extremely strong centralization and degree of order in the winning power Qin. In old Rome the other countries were powerless afther Hannibal. Therefore the Romans could afford an extreme degree of internal chaos. I have also written that the Americans are in an intermediate position between these extremes. They cannot afford a degree of chaos on the level of old Rome. That is for the Americans the danger that comes from types like Danald Trump. A more organized and stable China could win.
But will our world ever get united under one power?
The competitors are clearly China and the United States. Russia is for the time being on the defensive, at least globally seen. When looking at predecessor-civilizations we see a couple of examples of modernities not ending with a united world. In the first Mesopotamian civilization Hammurabi and his first successors did not succeed in conquering the southern Sealand. The Oriental world was still disunited under the Seldjuks. These deviations from the general rule had their specific reasons. In our case main reasons would be the cost and dangers of modern wars or even conflicts disrupting global trade.
Concerning Rome we nay learn from a broadened perspective. Rome never conquered the whole known world. The Parthian Empire was a very near and ever-present neighbor, and it was very able to resist. In fact the two reached a balance of power. Perhabs Parthia could have been conquered if the Romans had had a lesser degree of internal strife.
Also, Parthia was not a completely different world. Both empires were culturally largely Hellenistic. Parthia gradually became more Orientalized, but so did Rone. In many ways it could have been a natural end to sbsume all Hellenistic parts of the world from Gibraltar to the Indus under one power; the chaos in Rome may have been the factor stopping this development.
Our version of a later not united post-chaotic world could perhaps be the world divided between 3 powers with each their sphere of interest. The United States and China dividing the Western civilization between each other. Each de facto cntrollng their parts. And Russia in a third sphere gradually becomming more culturally distinct and different from the rest.
But the way to this could be filled with trouble. Gradually though the three powers will calm their spheres of influence and agree on the borders between these spheres. At the end could come the global
Pax Americana, Sinica et Russiana
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Parties become groups of followers
This was predicted by Spengler 100 years ago. In the last century of a modernity the political parties are gradually being transformed into groups of followers used as tools by single persons. A party has a program, a group of followers has a leader.
In the northern rich world we have already for a long time seen that political parties become more and more person-focused. Their leaders acting like superstars and the parties gaining votes as a function of this. But this never removed the role of programmatic political views. This has changed definitively for the new populist parties, often on the right wing. These are often a strong leader surrounded by "village fools".
And now most of the leaders of the Grand Old Party has been reduced to a group of followers. Surrounding and flattering their presidential candidate in the hope of getting high posts no matter the political principles. The long standing obstructionism in Congress was already a clear sign of the political decline. But it was still politically motivated. Now the only motive seems to be personal power. This is the end point of the political decline in late modernity which the Western civilization is entering.
The building up of NATO in Eastern Europe is a misguided and hawkish brick, reestablishing the Iron Curtain further to the east. But the talk by Mr. Trump of no longer garantying the security of for example the Baltic states must awake horror in NATO and in the US institutions established for securing America and its power in the world. Another reason why the support for Trump from leading Republicans is so incredible.
In principle a stable end predictable world order is preferable. But only for big players with an equal balance of power between them. Since the break up of the USSR this equal balance has been altered, Russia being pushed back very far toward Moscow. No wonder that Putin is no fan of a stability as is looks presently. NATO's recent expansionist behavior has just added to this. For subdued powers an unstable world order ruled by the will of single leaders is preferable to an unequal stability.
But seen from Washington as the capital of a superpower the Republicans under Donald Trump must look like a security risk.
In the northern rich world we have already for a long time seen that political parties become more and more person-focused. Their leaders acting like superstars and the parties gaining votes as a function of this. But this never removed the role of programmatic political views. This has changed definitively for the new populist parties, often on the right wing. These are often a strong leader surrounded by "village fools".
And now most of the leaders of the Grand Old Party has been reduced to a group of followers. Surrounding and flattering their presidential candidate in the hope of getting high posts no matter the political principles. The long standing obstructionism in Congress was already a clear sign of the political decline. But it was still politically motivated. Now the only motive seems to be personal power. This is the end point of the political decline in late modernity which the Western civilization is entering.
The building up of NATO in Eastern Europe is a misguided and hawkish brick, reestablishing the Iron Curtain further to the east. But the talk by Mr. Trump of no longer garantying the security of for example the Baltic states must awake horror in NATO and in the US institutions established for securing America and its power in the world. Another reason why the support for Trump from leading Republicans is so incredible.
In principle a stable end predictable world order is preferable. But only for big players with an equal balance of power between them. Since the break up of the USSR this equal balance has been altered, Russia being pushed back very far toward Moscow. No wonder that Putin is no fan of a stability as is looks presently. NATO's recent expansionist behavior has just added to this. For subdued powers an unstable world order ruled by the will of single leaders is preferable to an unequal stability.
But seen from Washington as the capital of a superpower the Republicans under Donald Trump must look like a security risk.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Turkey between civilizations
Of course everybody must condemn the failed coup attempt in Turkey. But the event will probably be used by Erdogan to start persecutions of both people involved in the attempt plus all other real and supposed opponents of the autocrat. Persecutions possibly on a scale and severity that may make some wish that the coup had succeeded. And make broader parts of the military wish they had participated.
Like other populists Erdogan appeals to hitherto marginalized parts of the population. People who have not followed the establishments modernization in mentality, culture and education. Like Erdogan so Trump, Le Pen, Orbán etc. but in Turkey this is complicated by the division caused by the westernization of the originally Oriental civilization introduced by Ataturk. This westernization only really transformed a part of the population. The other large part stayed more Oriental. But for decades they submitted as a passive silent marginalized half. With the AKP and Erdogan they have woken and gained a voice. Unlike elsewhere, in addition to the division between established and marginalized people comes the division between civilizations, between westernized parts of society and the remnants of the Oriental civilization. Like elsewhere in the Middle East these remnants struggle to resist the assimilation into the dominating Western civilization. The difference in civilization makes the division in Turkish society and the return of the marginalized more dangerous than the division between the establishment and its opponents in Europe and America.
Before these developments Turkey was a block of stability and approaching a modern democracy mature for EU-membership. Beginning to overcome the old divisions through room for pluralism of different people within the same society. A uniting party like the HDP was a product of this development. But Erdogan has ended this. He stirs up polarization and animosity. Between modernists and traditionalists, between westernized and Oriental, between Turks and Kurds.
After 1850 Turkey has gone through terrible phases of Ethnic cleansing of the type typical for the Oriental world under change from its old patchwork-nations to coherent western type territorial states. This seemed to be finally reaching its end with a pluralistic democracy being approached. But with the reappearing polarization and the coming to power of representatives of the marginalized more Oriental part of the population now beyond influence from the other half, it can be feared that forms of ethnic cleansing like pressure for assimilation may return. The secular parts as well as the sum of all parts of Turkey was on a stage after ethnic cleansing. The more Oriental part may not be. First affected are the Kurds and then perhaps the Alevis?
In sum Turkey risks disintegrating along lines of politics, civilization and ethnicity.
Like other populists Erdogan appeals to hitherto marginalized parts of the population. People who have not followed the establishments modernization in mentality, culture and education. Like Erdogan so Trump, Le Pen, Orbán etc. but in Turkey this is complicated by the division caused by the westernization of the originally Oriental civilization introduced by Ataturk. This westernization only really transformed a part of the population. The other large part stayed more Oriental. But for decades they submitted as a passive silent marginalized half. With the AKP and Erdogan they have woken and gained a voice. Unlike elsewhere, in addition to the division between established and marginalized people comes the division between civilizations, between westernized parts of society and the remnants of the Oriental civilization. Like elsewhere in the Middle East these remnants struggle to resist the assimilation into the dominating Western civilization. The difference in civilization makes the division in Turkish society and the return of the marginalized more dangerous than the division between the establishment and its opponents in Europe and America.
Before these developments Turkey was a block of stability and approaching a modern democracy mature for EU-membership. Beginning to overcome the old divisions through room for pluralism of different people within the same society. A uniting party like the HDP was a product of this development. But Erdogan has ended this. He stirs up polarization and animosity. Between modernists and traditionalists, between westernized and Oriental, between Turks and Kurds.
After 1850 Turkey has gone through terrible phases of Ethnic cleansing of the type typical for the Oriental world under change from its old patchwork-nations to coherent western type territorial states. This seemed to be finally reaching its end with a pluralistic democracy being approached. But with the reappearing polarization and the coming to power of representatives of the marginalized more Oriental part of the population now beyond influence from the other half, it can be feared that forms of ethnic cleansing like pressure for assimilation may return. The secular parts as well as the sum of all parts of Turkey was on a stage after ethnic cleansing. The more Oriental part may not be. First affected are the Kurds and then perhaps the Alevis?
In sum Turkey risks disintegrating along lines of politics, civilization and ethnicity.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Miscellaneous comments
Every time the United States enters a Middle Eastern country militarily it will evoke so much opposition and set free so much latent tension that the US will have to stay to keep enemies, chaos and terrorists under control.
Afghanistan and Iraq can not be left again. They like future cases are de facto American colonies.
The improved relations between Turkey and both Israel and Russia are good examples of future foreign relations, opportunistic and personalized.
You are enemies till you suddenly become friends.
You have a friend till you break up.
You have a point of view till you take another.
Some Republican members of Congress want Hillary Clinton brought before court because of the email-affair in order to help a clown to gain the presidency. With such a level of politics the Unites States can only become the greatest country on an earth void of real adversaries.
Afghanistan and Iraq can not be left again. They like future cases are de facto American colonies.
The improved relations between Turkey and both Israel and Russia are good examples of future foreign relations, opportunistic and personalized.
You are enemies till you suddenly become friends.
You have a friend till you break up.
You have a point of view till you take another.
Some Republican members of Congress want Hillary Clinton brought before court because of the email-affair in order to help a clown to gain the presidency. With such a level of politics the Unites States can only become the greatest country on an earth void of real adversaries.
Friday, June 24, 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)