The fall of the Berlin wall signified triumphs for democracy and capitalism as the dominant socio-political systems of the world. In the years between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ideological battle of socialism and collectivism versus democracy and capitalism had been slowly swinging in favor of the USA and its allies. The Communist parties’ stranglehold on power and their famed proclivity for the stick could not reverse the decay that would eventually corrode support for the communist ideology and bring about the fall of the Union. Many East Germans cast envious glances over the wall at the superior standard of living enjoyed by the West Germans and this only served to further undermine confidence in the communist system. Indeed, it is hard to be passionate about anything on an empty stomach. And while many citizens of nations belonging to the USSR could not claim to be willing participants in Soviet socialism, they were nevertheless part of the system. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was viewed as a victory for life, liberty and property as championed by the United States over the oppressive pseudo-socialism practiced by the Soviets, and in many ways it demonstrated quite thoroughly the incompatibility between absolute public ownership and the human propensity for self-interest. It was not so much irrefutable evidence that American democracy and capitalism were much, much better political and economic systems however.
‘People power’ was democracy’s clarion call, just as ‘free enterprise’, ‘choice’ and ‘profit’ were capitalism’s. Citizens of democratic countries had a say in the way the country was run as well as freedom of speech and as consumers in the invariably capitalist economies of those nations, they had wonderful things like choice and the right to actually own property. As it goes, most people have but a superficial understanding of both these systems that does not extend much further beyond ‘one man, one vote’ and ‘the free market’. As such it is not difficult to construct and maintain a veneer of democratic government and consumer power, which is exactly what is happening nowadays.
Since the destruction of the Wall and with it the communist ideological influence, the practice of democracy and capitalism has been left to grow virtually unchecked. These two principles are almost universally regarded as the most effective and efficient forms of economy and government, and despite their many flaws they are arguably preferable to other alternatives such as socialism. Yet, many go overboard when they espouse the virtues of capitalism and democracy to the extent that any and all doubts raised – legitimate or otherwise – are branded ‘anti-democratic’ and ‘socialist’.
Control, free enterprise, choice, profit. We could have all these things in the absence of government, in the eminent social contract theorist John Locke’s ‘state of nature’, in which ‘all men are free “to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.”’ The problem with this state lies in actually enforcing the natural rights of human beings. In the state of nature, how would an individual prevent another from infringing upon his or her life, liberty and property? It is here that the claim to legitimate government arises. This is important for all societies, especially for democratic and capitalistic ones that claim as much. It is the responsibility of the state to defend the rights of its citizens impartially and this is probably the most important function of government.
Mega-corporations and capitalists advocate the laissez-faire system, with greed being the underlying motivation. In the 1980s, these corporation fat-cats invested heavily in Ronald Reagan’s ultimately successful presidential campaign. In return, he would be a corporate spokesperson in the White House. And he was a damn good one too. With pro-capitalism rhetoric like ‘we’re going to turn the bull loose’, he managed to put up a façade that oozed confidence in the free market system. In fact, he was so successful that he managed to preside over the ‘wholesale dismantling of [the American] industrial infrastructure’ for the ‘sake of short term profits’ without significant opposition from the masses or anyone really. Deregulation of the financial industry and the destruction of labour unions also came under his administration, the effects of which culminated in the 2008 financial crisis roughly 20 years after his tenure, and may very well continue to hinder financial recovery for years to come. He enacted tax cuts which helped corporations that were already posting record profits earn even more money and the average citizen suffered from the proliferation of corporate greed.
German sociologist Robert Michels’ ‘iron law of oligarchy’ purports that every system eventually degenerates into oligarchy or rule by a small elite. The theory suggests that bureaucracy is required to maintain efficiency in large organizations. When that happens, centralization of power in the hands of a small group of people occurs. This is true of most modern day organizations, from nations to firms to even families. He further states that ‘democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule… is inevitable’. This is a far cry from Abraham Lincoln’s vision of a ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’, which is the essence of democracy. The much-vaunted ‘power of the people’ is therefore at best limited to balloting once every few years, and at worst, just a big blown-up charade. Vladimir Putin’s large win in the first ever Russian presidential election as a relative unknown and the veritable landslide in his second campaign led to some sections of the Russian public voicing doubts over the credibility and transparency of the elections, with some even claiming that the whole democratic gesture was a farce. Virtually every democratic government worldwide practices some form of electoral fraud, ranging from subtler measures like gerrymandering to blatant vote-buying. This is democracy in practice and thus the myth that people are truly empowered by democracy is well and truly busted.
What happened to choice and consumer power? Deregulation of financial industries and economies worldwide led to rampant corporate greed, a decline in accountability, firms that become ‘too big to fail’ and many unsavoury business practices such as ‘dead peasant’ insurance plans, where corporations take out insurance policies on their employees and get paid in the event of their employees’ deaths. All of this done in the name of ‘free enterprise’ and ‘capitalism’, when in fact they go completely against the spirit of democracy. What’s more appalling is that the zealots who defended capitalism and democracy and citizens everywhere stood idly by as the last vestiges of their sovereignty was siphoned off and replaced with some semblance of it. CEOs and the heads of multi-nationals make up a new sort of plutarchy – where the rich and powerful command vast influence in matters even outside their line of work.
As consumers and voters, our influence on political and economic matters is much smaller than we believe or have been led to believe. As far as the world is concerned, the average citizen is a small fish in a universe ruled by a handful of very wealthy, very influential sharks. If we don’t stand up for ourselves, real democracy and social justice, we might as well be prostituting ourselves and our rights because no one else is going to stop the rest of the world trampling all over us in the race to get ahead in life.
Written while the writer was listening to Dizzy Up the Girl by the Goo Goo Dolls. Ahh the ’90s…
Image taken from here
3 comments
EweFangJiunn says:
Jun 8, 2012
The last paragraph seems very contradictory to me. It says that the governed are small fry, have little power to change the ruling, and cannot really make an impact because the few powerful individuals are making it so. Therefore, we the governed must stand up for ourselves and use our power to change the ruling, so that the few powerful individuals have less power and we have more, even if we have little power to do it. Sounds like a Catch-22 to me.
The central problem has always been people, not the system. Democracies work in situations where the voting majority actually know what they want, and want things that are good and sane and respect others’ rights. Also, the principle-agent problem must be absent: the people voted to carry out the interests of the people must do nothing else but pursue the interest of the majority. Usually, either one of the two are absent. Witness USA, where the population believes evolution is disproven because of the non-existence of the crocoduck, or better still “Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can’t explain that.” Sanity is frighteningly low in some of the people there, who, unfortunately, are able to gather many people to follow in their beliefs and vote for them. Also witness the impossibility of absolving the principle-agent problem. Politicians campaign on a set of their own agendas, and people vote for the one whose set agrees most with them, and mathematically this would produce choices that are closer to the middle of the extremes. Yet the Tea Party and Republican (and sometimes Democrat) asininity of tribal either-you’re-with-us-or-you’re-against-us mentality makes the principle-agent problem go the other way around, furthering party agendas that move further away from reconciliation to the middle ground.
Malaysia is a more Draconian version of this, while Singapore is a polished-up and more delectably-presented version of Malaysia’s political scene. Both look like aristocracies that run in families, and functionally they are, since votes here don’t really mean much except a customary hoo-hah every 4 years or so to choose the same sheeple into power, while those at the top are out of voter’s hands. Laws get passed with or without debate, and most are passed with hopes of winning over a certain voter demographic or other. The ultimate goal is to stay in power, to keep the aristocracy running, and this is detrimental to the people as it can (and has) lead to abuse of power, though it also makes implementing unpopular but essential policies easier.
All of the above seem to emulate aristocracy in implementation. Aristocracy means a government where the most qualified governed the rest, to uphold the social contract of providing security with payment in certain restrictions. The best would be selected by various methods, including exams, debates, debutantes and word of mouth (probably, need more research). Most of the time, however, those who are most qualified and those who actually want to run the country (with good intentions one hopes) are not the same person, structural unemployability they call it in economics. This leads to aristocracy being less than ideal as a form of government.
Still, if the aristocrats are somehow able to avoid corruption and adhere to the principles of good and sane leadership, or the democratic leaders, or dictators really, then there’s no reason why any governance should be inherently better than another. (Other than Communism, unless the people are actually willing to work more than others to get the same amount. Which is unlikely unless the government is Draconian, again undesirable.)
Past kings in China and England and many other lands held counsel with their people to hear their problems and solve them; they were essentially dictators running down a bloodline. Julius Caesar ended a chaotic republican government (though through less than desirable means) and brought Rome into Pax Romana, continued on by Octavius (or Augustus Caesar), both as Dictator for Life of Rome, before the Roman empire fell to senile, insane, corrupt succeeding dictators, in that order. Ancient Greeks held aristocracy which prospered, then fell, again due to corruption.
This article sounds a bit too cynical of democracy as a symbol of progress, and it is true. Democracy is a means to an end, which is freedom and equality of the powers of each person to dictate what he/she wants in the country. A voting system is not democracy, already clearly illustrated. In the end, it all depends on corruption, or rather, the absence of it. Corruption of ideals and character is not just power-seeking or embezzlement, but also refusal to debate and compromise, self-centredness, and forgetting that you serve the people, not the other way around. These are what lead to all the problems everywhere.
And those Republicans really need to brush up on their math. Low tax, high spending and no debt cannot possibly be in the same policy.
nickfoo says:
Jun 10, 2012
Yay! My first comment! Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Yup, my last paragraph came out wrong. I think what I meant to say was that we have less power than we have been led to believe, and that it is being steadily eroded, but our say is still not insignificant and therefore we must act now to ensure that it does not become so.
I agree that the central problem is the people and not the system: politics is, after all, a game played by people. Nevertheless, it appears that politics and government are based upon the stubbornly inherent human tendency for self-interest(politics and government as means to the ends of a higher standard of living), and as such, it would seem easier for a system to be chosen to fit the people, rather than the reverse. And like you mentioned, democracy theoretically only works with an informed and discerning electorate. This is an unfortunate failing of democracy in practice; one that plagues all the democracies in the world. Thus, I don’t think it is fair to only lambast the USA for this.
‘Witness USA, where the population believes evolution is disproven because of the non-existence of the crocoduck, or better still “Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can’t explain that.”’ I believe that’s a generalisation. I seriously doubt the majority, or a sufficiently large number of Americans believe that for you to claim those as beliefs of ‘the population’ of America. Yes, there are people who don’t make rational judgements when it comes to politics; yes, there is mob mentality; yes, there is fearmongering and zealotry; but no, I don’t think most Americans believe that. What’s more is that it is a problem in virtually all democracies, so this is not an exclusively ‘American’ problem.
The problem with virtually all other political frameworks(such as aristocracy) is that there is no safeguard for the natural rights and liberties of the individual, so it loses out to democracy in this regard because these rights can be arbitrarily assigned or removed, thus leaving it open to abuses of power. Plato purports that the benevolent dictatorship is the ideal system, and so there could be a case for aristocracy; I also agree that no form of government is innately better than another. However, different systems produce differing results when implemented. Historically, as a whole, democracies have produced the least amount of bloodshed and arguably the greatest amount of wealth(due to the inevitable ‘capitalist-ification’ of economies that comes with democracies). It is not so much a question of which system is the most ideal, but which system is most efficient in actual practice. Democracy appears to be superior in this regard. The problem with having power in the hands of a few, be they aristocrats or monarchs or whatever, is if and when they fall off the fine line between being good rulers and being a tyrant. There is nothing that the layman can fall back upon.
I disagree, however, that Malaysia is an aristocracy(rule of a small group of the most suitable rulers). There must be some sort of performance benchmarks for ‘most suitable’. Judging by Malaysia’s track record in the aspects of democratisation and economic performance(relative to initial natural resources), I’d say we are just about the farthest thing from an aristocracy. An oligarchy, a kleptocracy, a plutocracy maybe; but not an aristocracy. You could argue that Singapore is a better example of an ‘aristocracy’, but as of now, even the PAP’s direction and suitability is coming under ever-increasing scrutiny; they are steadily losing support and by Lee Kuan Yew’s own admission, the day will come when the PAP loses. The thing that will never change is the politicians’ lust(maybe not ‘lust’ but interest) for power. Nonetheless, this is the same for all systems. As you put forth, the problem is the people, not the system. Man’s inherent proclivity to succumb to the lure and corruption of power constitutes the majority of the problem. Democracy hypothetically provides the counters and balances for this in its ‘separation of powers’ tenet. This article is not so much blasting democracy as much as lamenting what we have let it become.
Democracy is probably the best we can realistically hope for. The main premise of my article is that we have lost sight of the big picture, and whether through ignorance or inaction, allowed greed to trump capitalism(though by Karl Marx’s reasoning, that was always going to be the case) and allowed our democratic systems to be perverted, diluted and in some cases demolished entirely. It’s time to change all that.
EweFangJiunn says:
Jun 10, 2012
Well, America is an easy target, a straw man I suppose. You’re right that in practice, democracy does produce the best and most humane result, even if a whole lot of time and money is wasted that could otherwise be saved if a dictator simply said “let it be done”. Then again, debate IS the way to produce fair results. Win some lose some.
As Alan Moore masterfully quoted, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” We need more Lincolns basically.