Could 2009 be the start of the post-democracy era, thanks to 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 would appear to be a case study demonstrating that democracy and capitalism do not need each other. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in reality. Singapore and South Korea 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 independence unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. Meanwhile ‘soft authoritarian’ countries on the Pacific Rim are sporting 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. Except perhaps 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 maybe we are too liberated, and our depraved existence will cost us our location atop the pecking order 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 effects of the biggest financial catastrophy in 3/4 of a century were becoming felt, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Bureaucrats that were appointed, not elected. 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. In the meantime, we ordinary citizens tried to take hold of both the causes and the sheer size 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 Chinese understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. That is not America’s expectation of government. 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 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?
As a matter of fact, the President had little visibility at the forefront of the crisis, which played a part in the inclination of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What brash 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. 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 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, protest over the internet a military action we disagree with, and decide local issues. Are we equipped to leave the substance of national/global policy-making, the part that controls how people earn a living, to the professionals? That is the way China does it and they are expanding at 8% per year.
