Head Winds for the Reign of the People
Arethe boom years freedom over and the forces of democracy in retreat? According to this column by Thomas Klau of Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland, with the world of ‘capital’ migrating toward authoritarian regimes like Russia and China and ‘decoupling’ from the liberal democracies, ‘democracy could be only a matter of an era, and not the end of history.’
“Supporters of a liberal, humanistic respect for basic democratic values now must do battle on many fronts – and their greatest – the USA – now constitutes one of the greatest battle fronts of all.”
By Thomas Klau
Translated by Julian Jacob
November 29, 2007
Germany – Financial Times Deutschland – Original Article (German)
Authoritarian governments are witnessing a renaissance that the democrats of the world must fight – and they must do so forcefully.
Eighteen years have passed since Francis Fukuyama gained worldwide attention and fame with his forecast of the “End of History .”
“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such, wrote the American intellectual wrote in his essay, published in the revolutionary year of 1989. Mankind may have reached the end of its ideological evolution, namely, “the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
Fukuyama long ago distanced himself from this analysis, and not a few of his statements now seem like hastily formulated nonsense. Nevertheless, for a long time they had an astonishing resonance. The Soviet dictatorship that competed with the liberal democracies had disintegrated into dust, and the USA was the shining proof that a working democracy and military superiority are compatible. After this experience with the Soviet bloc, the triumph of liberal government seemed imminent in China, Asia and eventually even Africa.
DEMOCRACY ON THE DEFENSIVE
Tempi passati [Italian for Time has past]. Nowadays the hope of democracy’s triumph no longer dominates. Quite the contrary – the fear of a lasting renaissance of authoritarianism now dominates. In Russia as in China, authoritarian central governments enjoy tremendous popular support thanks to strong economic growth; in Latin America, Venezuelan Hugo Chavez demonstrates that in the southern half of the continent, the long-term dominant trend toward more democracy is not at all irreversible. The situation seems even more dismal in the Arab countries, where almost everywhere, free elections would bring to power Islamic disciples of Savonarola , who would usher in democratic rule to achieve Puritanical terror.
In the central organ of the German Zeitgeists, the news magazine Der Spiegel, Dirk Kurbjuweit recently wrote of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s most recent visit to China and of the sense of loneliness on the part of democrats. And he asked a heretical question. “It’s getting exciting to see which side capital will gravitate toward in the future,” Kurbjuweit wrote. “Up to now it was on the side of democracy, since it has always been democratic industrial states which adopted the market economy. The Chinese model could eventually become an alternative. Man sometimes forgets that democracy could be only a matter of an era, and not the end of history.”
A Renaissance of Puritanism, a Renaissance of authoritarianism, and perhaps the decoupling of free-market principles from the principles of democracy – these are the messages heard by people today. And to this we must add the weakening of the fundamental values of democratic humanism, such as the ban on torture and arbitrary imprisonment in the United States. The wind has changed and it’s blowing in the wrong direction.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Head Winds for the Reign of the People”
I always thought that the decline of the princeiples of democracy was the inevitable dark side of globalization.
When those producing social change have no loyalty other than to profit, how could it be otherwise? The power of democratic governments stops at their borders, while market forces driven purely by greed extend beyond their reach.
Some optimists predict that the trend will reverse some time in the future. They think that the attractiveness of democracy will return when general economic levels rise.
I tend to doubt it. Most social change is brought about by those suffering under current conditions. With a full belly, complacency is the more likely result.
The complacency that comes with personal prosperity is part of what’s behind America’s moral decline. IMO. Protecting persoanl wealth becomes more important than worrying about what horrors go on in back rooms in order to preserve it.
This is a time when I’m glad i’m old and won’t see my worst fears realized.
Sure would be something to see an equally well informed and intellectually honest piece describing why we are heading toward a more promising future with regard to successful democracies, more balanced distribution of wealth and humanitarian impulses -something like what Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he wrote this:
“Instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger, than benefit to society,…make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent.”
Unfortunately, I don’t expect to see an article written as a counterpoint to the Klau piece that isn’t written with cheerleader intent. That said, the future isn’t a done deal and people of vision and courage still have the ability to effect it in positive ways.
Ben Wattenberg?
J spencer,
“the future isn’t a done deal and people of vision and courage still have the ability to effect it in positive ways.”
From your keyboard to god’s ears.
There are, extraordinary people, who go to some awful place for one visit and stay a lifetime to do miralces for the locals.
There is, indeed, something in the human sprit that can rise above all predictions and expectations.
Thanks for cheering me up.
domajot- I agree with you 100% on your thoughts on complacency and moral decline. If I’d written that, I would have gone on for ten pages, so thanks!
However I’m not in total agreement with this:
I think the power of governments (including democratic governments) extend beyond their borders and that market forces can be influenced by governments. Some examples of a government exerting it’s influence beyond its borders are tariffs, subsidies (help domestic industries compete globally), aid packages and the threat of war…. I do believe that no matter how much a government can try to influence events, conditions and other countries, that the best a government can do is to encourage conditions to go their way. There’s no full-proof, 100% effective way for a government to control anything.
JSPencer: I agree with you. “People with vision and courage still have the ability to effect (our future) in positive ways”. And I truly believe that the US has not yet passed the point of no return in its decline. I think we are getting close to that point where we can’t turn back, but we’re not there yet. Interestingly enough it may be global warming that will save this country. What I mean is that people work best together when confronting a threat. If the American people (and politicians) feel sufficiently threatened by global warming then they can begin to work together to “solve” that problem. While they’re working on that issue they may begin to work on other issues, too. So a threat such as global warming can save this country.
Regardless of anything else, we need a leader who will pull America together and not divide it for their own political gain and the economic gain of his/her supporters. I think Obama will be best at this, but I’m not too sure about Hillary on this point because she is such a polarizing figure. As far as the Republicans…. none of the current candidates would be good at all on pulling America together. The Republicans pander to the white religious right. The programs the Republicans support overwhelmingly help the wealthy and not do much for the middle and lower classes.
The Democrats pander to many special interest groups, which includes groups more race-and-ethnicity-based than the Religious Right (and has expressed racism and hatred against whites, particularly those who are religious, from the South, or otherwise violate the PC dicta), while the religious right (as has been true with libertarians) have a) gone to the only major party offering them a home; b) fled persecution and hatred from the other side and the other party.
The Religious Right is not offensive to decent, normal people; we do not fear, much less hate, those people. I’ve heard them described as the GOP’s “albatross,” but that again is primarily due to the wrongful behavior directed at it by the other side (including propaganda that gullible voters will believe) that makes it a political liability.