Might 2009 be the beginning of the post-democracy era, complements of the current financial crisis?
Francis Fukayama once declared the ‘end of history,’ to wit, that the Great Questions of History have been answered, 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 triumphant representation 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 seems to be a case study confirming 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. Singapore and South Korea followed appropriately. All three grew to be 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 the time being ‘soft authoritarian’ countries on the Pacific Rim are exhibiting 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 example says that government will offer a steady environment for business; people are free to do as they yearn for, within the restrictions of this structured society, and everyone benefits. Except perhaps artists, oddballs, wierdos, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and all others not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why defend them, at the cost of a rising wealth?
So perhaps we are too free, and our depraved lifestyles will cost us our position atop the pecking order of nations. But the financial predicament of 2008-2009 begot another possibility: 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 effects of the biggest financial disaster in ¾ of a century were becoming experienced, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Appointed bureaucrats, not elected officials. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, presented the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first hinder and then rubberstamp President Bush’s economic team’s strategy. Meanwhile, we regular citizens tried to grasp both the causes and the enormity of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to start 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 people of China understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. America has different expectations of government. But we have to deal with the complexities of re-regulating investment banks, controlling complex investment instruments, manipulating our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is likely, very likely, that the community politician we elected (wherever in the US we may reside) as our congressperson because she, or he, did such a excellent job on the school board is not up to this?
In fact, the elected head of the executive branch was little visible at the forefront of the crisis, which added 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 veteran 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 welfare of big business means the wellbeing of most of us, what is the quandary? If we need fast action, why put our faith in the slow, political process of democracy?
Perhaps we shouldn’t agonize 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, complain over the internet a military action we differ 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 the way China does it and they are expanding at 8% per year.