Could 2009 be the beginning of the post-democracy era, complements of the current financial crisis?
Francis Fukayama once said that the ‘end of history,’ that is to know, that the Great Questions of History have been resolved, and that the understanding 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 people who object to modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.
Asia can be seen as a case study substantiating that capitalism and democracy do not need one another. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in actuality. South Korea and Singapore followed suit. All three grew to be wealthy. 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 freedom 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 model says that government will offer a stable environment for business; people are free to do as they will, within the confines of this ordered society, and everyone benefits. 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 stick up for them, at the expense of a mounting prosperity?
So perhaps we are too free, and our decadent existence will cost us our position atop the hierarchy 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? Not elected officials, but appointed bureaucrats. 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. For the moment, we ordinary citizens tried to grasp both the causes and the sheer size of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to commence fixing this? Possibly a trillion-and-a-half when all is said and done? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.
The citizens of China comprehend a system run by unelected bureaucrats. Expectations of government are different in America. But we have to manage the intricacies of re-regulating investment banks, supervising complex investment instruments, manipulating our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is possible that the community politician we elected (anywhere in the US we may 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 fundamental changes? No. They created a bigger stimulus plan much like the one pushed by President Bush.
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 deem it necessary to bail out big corporations, increase unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we object? 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 deliberate personal rights, voice disapproval over the internet a military action we oppose, and decide local issues. Are we prepared to leave the meat 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.
