Does Economics Trump Democracy?
Might 2009 be the beginning of the post-democracy era, complements of the current financial crisis?
Francis Fukayama on one occasion declared the ‘end of history,’ to know, that the Great Questions of History have been resolved, and that the consensus was that the best course for mankind was economic capitalism combined with a democratic government. There would be no more need for conflict; the case was closed in favor of modern Western values. The winning model included human rights, free and fair elections, and free markets.
Then came 9-11, which left no doubt that conflict remains, and that the consensus was not so consensual. There are some people who balk at modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.
Asia would seem to be a case study proving that capitalism and democracy don’t need each other. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in actuality. South Korea and Singapore followed appropriately. All three developed into wealthy countries. President Lee, Singapore’s former leader, stated that personal freedoms, which we regard as key to our democracy, will lead to the downfall of the US. Such independence unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. For now ‘soft authoritarian’ countries on the Pacific Rim are boasting growing economies; their price is personal freedom, which Confucian societies value less than conformity and stability. China is following the same lead as the other ‘tiger economies,’ and this formerly-communist economy is increasing its GDP faster than any other nation, while its currently communist government swats away the flies of dissent. This archetype says that government will offer a stable environment for business; people are liberated to do as they wish, within the limits of this ordered society, and everyone profits. With the exception, perhaps, of artists, oddballs, wierdos, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and anyone else not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why stand up for them, at the cost of a increasing prosperity?
So maybe we are too free, and our decadent way of life will cost us our place atop the hierarchy of nations. But the financial catastrophe of 2008-2009 lead to another option: that the sheer complexity of economic life in the modern world is in the process of making democracy as we know it obsolete.
When the largest financial crisis in three-quarters of a century occurred, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Appointed, not elected bureaucrats. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, laid out the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first interfere with and then rubberstamp President Bush’s economic team’s plan. For the time being, we regular citizens tried to take hold of both the causes and the vastness of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to begin to fix this? Maybe a trillion-and-a-half when it is all over? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.
The Chinese understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. Americans’ expectation of government is different. But we have to handle the difficulties of re-regulating investment banks, controlling complex investment instruments, manage our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is possible, just possible, that the local politician we elected (wherever in the US we live) as our congressperson because s/he did such a great job on the school board is not up to this?
Actually, the President was little visible at the forefront of the crisis, which contributed to the inclination of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What bold actions are in store from our new elected officials? Well, the new president brought in skilled bureaucrats to fill his economic team. Other essential changes? No. There is a stimulus plan, pretty much like the one pushed by President Bush, only bigger.
Is this abrogation of the policy limelight by elected officials in favor of insiders a good thing or a bad thing? If the central bankers believe it necessary to rescue big corporations, raise unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we raise any objections? If the wellbeing of big business means the welfare of most of us, what is the dilemma? If we need swift action, why put our reliance in the slow, political process of democracy?
Maybe we should not be concerned about the rights of those on the political and social fringe, because our idea of the fringe has changed over time. In his book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, who is more optimistic than I am about the state of democracy today, looked back at the ‘50s as the Golden Years, saying that America offered high-paying blue collar jobs, corporate statesmanship, and a government-industry-labor partnership that maintained stability and prosperity; he noted that the cost was a rigid and stifling conformity. Peter Beinart recently wrote in Time that “The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order — to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas…”
Maybe people need only the appearance of control over their own lives. We can debate personal rights, protest over the internet a military action we disagree with, and decide local issues. Are we ready to allow the essence of national/global policy-making, the part that controls how people make a living, to the experts? That is how China does it and they are growing at 8% a year.
A fascinating article. There’s different ways you can look at the ways in which different policitcal system work (or don’t). Claiming that we in the west have got it 100% right is laughable.
Comment by Fred from Wholesale Manufacturers China — August 6, 2009 @ 11:21 am
An interesting thing. Bt I believe that there’s no democracy at all as it seems that the only possible form of democracy is anarchy. So, it’s a complicated issue, really, and erquires a lot of job and investiagtion.
Comment by Liza Brown (career advice expert)@job search — September 17, 2009 @ 10:51 am