|
Not The End Of History?
Democracy
& Various Heretical Arguments
for Liberal Authoritarianism
Essay, William Hooper, February 2008, Update August 2008
Introduction
Winston Churchill wrote "It has been said that democracy is the worst
form of government except all the others that have been tried". These
days, however, the vast majority of intellectuals no longer see
democracy as a sort of necessary evil in the way Churchill did. Instead,
today’s thinkers are generally passionate supporters of democracy. In
1989 Francis Fukuyama famously summed up his euphoric modern viewpoint
with an essay entitled "The End Of History":
"The notion that mankind has progressed through a series of primitive
stages of consciousness on his path to the present, and that these
stages corresponded to concrete forms of social organization, such as
tribal, slave-owning, theocratic, and finally democratic-egalitarian
societies, has become inseparable from the modern understanding of
man... [We may be in the process of witnessing] the end of history as
such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the
universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human
government."
Not only is democracy now generally believed to be the most enlightened
form of government, it is also believed to be the only form of
government able to offer long term economic prosperity. Therefore, on
material grounds alone, it is believed that the masses will eventually
rebel against any other system, making democracy the only sustainable
form of government.
However, this widely accepted claim that no other system can thrive is
now being increasingly challenged by the economic success of
authoritarian China and semi-authoritarian Russia and Singapore.
Most orthodox thinkers still see the success of China as an anomaly that
can not last. They believe that corruption is endemic to the
authoritarian system and this will eventually cause economic growth in
China to stall. The logic works as follows: Darwinian style competition
for selfish profit is a vital driver of growth and creativity; this
process of 'creative destruction' requires a free market; but a free
market can not exist in a corrupt system. Indeed economic historians
point out that many regimes in the past, eg Russia under Stalin and
Italy under Mussolini, showed initially high growth rates after adopting
an authoritarian model and then fell into decline.
A few semi-orthodox thinkers still believe that democracy offers the
best form of government but acknowledge that the authoritarian model may
be more sustainable than previous believed. Perhaps the level of
corruption endemic to the authoritarian system has been overestimated,
perhaps also other economic factors benefit from authoritarianism which
mitigates the corruption issue. For example: Robert Kagan,
foreign-policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, has said: “We lived under the illusion that economic success
required political liberalisation. All the optimism of the 1990s rested
on this assumption. Now it appears that the causality is less certain.
Autocratic governments can sustain economic growth, and indeed their
economic success helps them sustain their autocracy. This means, if
nothing else, that we must be ready for a world in which powerful
autocracies endure and perhaps even thrive... The old struggle, the one
that long predated the Cold War, has returned.”
It's still very much a nascent movement, but a third group of real
heretics, drawn primarily from the world of financial markets, are now
arguing that the spectacular economic success of "The China Model",
which has been sustained for almost 30 years now, and which dwarfs the
achievement of emerging democracies such as India, demonstrates that
authoritarianism can, in fact, deliver higher levels of economic growth
than democracy even in the longer term. These heretics argue that we
must learn from China's example and we must recognise that our
increasingly politicised democracies are failing us. The United Kingdom
is the oldest modern democracy and it typifies the decline. Long ago the
disproportionate wealth of the elite allowed them to present the people
with a limited selection of candidates supported by patronage, and the
UK flourished as a democratic oligarchy. In the 1920s Trade Unions
upended this system by creating the Labour Party. Today UK politics is
firmly in the control of the masses and many feel the quality of policy
making has fallen to an all time low, meanwhile the economy appears to be in terminal
decline. Heretics believe we urgently need to change course.
The heretics argue that if it becomes clear that a more authoritarian
system offers significant economic advantages it will eventually become
popular. Suppose, for the purposes of argument, that an authoritarian
system did offer higher rates economic growth, lower rates of
unemployment, better infrastructure, more efficient government spending,
lower taxes and higher standard of living. Would people accept these
many advantages in return for reduced policy responsibility?
The heretics argue they would. In support of this they point out that
people who have lived in several countries usually put concern with
taxation and economic growth far ahead of politics and appear almost
equally happy with any modern civilised government. For example, low tax
regimes such as Monaco and Singapore are popular even though they are
not democracies. Also, aside from Switzerland few countries hold many
referendums, yet people do not appear to miss this greater democratic
power. In addition, most Westerners are unhappy with their elected
government anyway. If the worlds oldest and richest Democracies are led
by unpopular and untalented leaders such as George Bush and Gordon
Brown, is it any wonder that elected governments in Pakistan quickly
loose popular support? The Chinese government is, by contrast, extremely
popular with its people (although critics complain this is because
dissenting opinion is crushed).
Many will immediately ask: "If democracy is so bad why is the USA so
rich?". The heretics argue that the USA’s economic success over the last
couple of hundred years is in fact less about democracy than it is about
policy gridlock which has kept the government small and allowed the
markets to flourish (indeed the more democratic countries of Europe have
fared worse). However, they also argue that future challenges, such as
raising government revenue to provide universal healthcare and social
security benefits to retirees, will require genuine and bold government
policy responses that are very difficult to make in a democracy.
In November 2006 Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, wrote
an article called “Wrong Time for Gridlock”. He said “Conventional
wisdom in financial markets has it that gridlock is good [Stocks rally
when the house/senate/president are split between parties]. The implicit
assumption is that with a dynamic US economy in such great shape the
best thing that Washington can do is nothing… But there are also
circumstances which demand leadership and decisive policy actions. This
is one of those times…” The inability of policy gridlock to address the
challenges faced by the US is the reason some smart investors turned
bearish of the dollar in 2001 and are still bearish today.
Heretics point out that a gridlocked system is less democratic, since
elected representatives have less power, and if the USA does owe much of
it's success to gridlock, then the case for limiting democracy is
obviously proved. The argument can only be about the degree to which
democracy should be reigned back. Indeed, most intellectuals, if really
pushed, would have to admit that dramatically extending referendums in
policy making would probably damage growth and prosperity.
Much of what follows is therefore a discussion of the possible economic
advantages of increasing authoritarianism. The challenges of building a
less democratic government, which include the selection and removal of
politicians, the prevention of corruption, excessive utilitarianism and
resistance to change are discussed at the end of this article. Heretics
certainly acknowledge these challenges, but they also propose possible
solutions. Please remember that Liberal Authoritarian models attempt to
tone down democracy, they certainly do not wish to create an entirely
authoritarian country governed by a despotic emperor who rules by fear.
Liberal Authoritarianism is a new idea but some are experimenting with
the idea. President Musharraf, for example, described himself as a
liberal authoritarian. He missed few opportunities to extol the virtues
of a free press and did more than any leader in Pakistan's history to
make that freedom available with his decision to open up the airwaves
and allow a mushrooming of cable channels. He also believed in freedom
of religion, fought against violent extremism and was never credibly
accused of corruption unlike his democratically elected predecessors. He
worked closely with the IMF instituting many laudable reforms that
boosted economic growth. Eventually he reintroduced democracy, but after
Bhutto's assassination he lost popular support. Now that he has
relinquished the helm many feel the country is again headed toward
disaster.
Ancient Greece - Democracy, War and Moral Decline
Today the heretic arguments against democracy are about economics, in
Ancient Greece they were about war. Weak nations fell to stronger ones
in a Darwinian process, and good government was primarily that which
could survive. By 430BC the Greek World had largely divided itself into
two great alliances, one headed by the brash wealthy democracy of
Athens, one by the old fashioned kingdom of Sparta. Politics in Ancient
Greece, just as today, was largely divided into two political parties.
However, instead of Socialists-Capitalists, they had
Democrats-Authoritarians. Also, as today, the poor tended to vote for
one party (Democracy) and the rich tended to vote for the other.
"The History of the
Peloponnesian War" by the Athenian Thucydides describes the terrible war
that broke out between them. By the end of this war, which was said to
have the largest and deadliest ever fought at that time, Athens was
reduced to a state of near-complete subjection, while Sparta was
established as the leading power of Greece. In the process democracy all
but disappeared from Ancient Greece.
Beginning in about 600BC, many small Greek city-states, which had
previously been oligarchies, became "direct democracies" in which every
citizen could vote on every issue of government. There were no
representatives in this system, instead, citizens ruled themselves
directly. This was almost a total democracy except for the fact that
women and slaves were not considered citizens and were not allowed to
vote.
In 430BC Athens had 40,000 citizens and policy was decided at the
Assembly which met several times per month usually with around 5,000
citizens in attendance. Government wasn't a spectator sport, ordinary
citizens were expected to know enough about "world affairs" to make
complex decisions. Any citizen could get up and speak, and we know from
historical records that they did so. Government jobs were allocated to
citizens for one year by lot. The Athenians had a name for one who opted
out, who withdrew into his home and family or occupation, and didn't
participate in this community. They called him an "idiotes", a "private
person", and these people were looked down upon and said to be incapable
of developing into really fine human beings. The Greeks believed
completely in self perfection and self sacrifice for their community.
At the very top of the Athenian system were 10 military generals who
were elected instead of being chosen by lot. The Athenians recognized
the ability of Pericles and year in year out re-elected him as one of
their generals. He became the most influential citizen although he never
held a formal title such as President.
Athens became by far the most powerful and cultured city-state in
Greece. However, by 430BC many had begun to question the democratic
model. Reading Thucydides one can not fail to be impressed by both the
intellectual and moral sophistication of Greek debate. Nevertheless,
many felt that Athens had deteriorated and was embracing increasingly
populist policy. Much of her wealth was extracted from her neighbours
whom she was accused of treating unfairly. Sparta, although insular and
much less wealthy, was respected for retaining the old fashioned Greek
values, such as idealism and virtue, which the citizens of Athens were
now accused of increasingly lacking. When Athens fell to Sparta many
rejoiced and her downfall was said to have been supported and predicted
by the Gods.
Explaining the fall of Athens, which occurred in spite of its vast
wealth, Thucydides writes:
Pericles indeed, by his rank, ability, and known integrity, was
enabled to exercise an independent control over the multitude--in short,
to lead them instead of being led by them; for as he never sought power
by improper means, he was never compelled to flatter them, but, on the
contrary, enjoyed so high an estimation that he could afford to anger
them by contradiction. Whenever he saw them unseasonably and insolently
elated, he would with a word reduce them to alarm; on the other hand, if
they fell victims to a panic, he could at once restore them to
confidence. In short, what was nominally a democracy became in his hands
government by the first citizen. With his successors it was different.
More on a level with one another, and each grasping at supremacy, they
ended by committing even the conduct of state affairs to the whims of
the multitude... [many blunders then led to defeat]
The philosopher Socrates was both the leading intellectual of the day
and a hero of the 400BC Peloponnesian War who fought for Athens.
Socrates also criticised the democratic system which he considered
culpable. His most intellectually accomplished student, Plato, wrote the
'The Republic', an influential work of philosophy and political theory
in which he proposed rule by a 'Philosopher King' (later Plato moved
away from the idea of concentrating power in the hands of a single
individual and instead advocated an elite governing body).
Plato categorised the political systems of the time, in increasing order
of injustice, as:
(a) Timocracy: A city ruled by an idealistic, disciplined, proud and
honour loving warrior class. Sparta was the prime example. Although he
considered this to be the most admirable of the existing systems, Plato
believed the aspirational push on the masses was flawed as it did not
focus on open minded intellectual refinement, but rather some ossified
vision of honour or goodness. Perhaps we can think of Timocracy as a
quasi-religious society. Plato's dream was to take the next step and
build a less traditional society ruled by a elite class of enlightened
philosophers. In the Republic he speculates what structure a
theoretically perfect society might take. His radical ideas include the
collective upbringing of children who do not even know whom their
parents are, which should promote a more advanced sense of brotherhood.
(b) Oligarchy: A government in the hands of a wealthy subset of the
productive class. This society, Plato said, is characterised by an appetite for
wealth, but appetites are at least to a degree reined in, leading to a
careful and orderly albeit highly materialistic character. We can see
how Plato considered Oligarchy to be a less idealistic and more
materialistic society than Timocracy. In Greek history, or mythology, we
have the era of heroes and aristocrats described by Homer giving way to
wealthy merchantman and modern materialism.
(c) Democracy: A state in which any member can participate equally,
according to his wishes. He believed that so much freedom and the lack
of a upwardly guiding force led to disorder, moral decline, even in the
very long term, chaos and tyranny.
(d) Tyranny: A state with a single ruthless dictator, who maintains rule
by force and fear. Society looses all upward push, becomes utterly
un-idealistic, ruthless, often perverse and sometimes violent.
For a feeling of life in democratic Athens, consider this quote from
Plato's Republic:
Democracy?... In the first place, are they not free, is not the city
full of freedom and frankness, a man may say and do what he likes. And
where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself
his own life as he pleases. Thus in this kind of State there will be the
greatest variety of human natures. This, then, seems likely to be the
fairest of States, being an embroidered robe which is spangled with
every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of
colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom
this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of
mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States... Is not their
humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming. Have you not
observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been
sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the
world -- the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?...
Is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely
delightful...
Eventually we find... complete equality and liberty in relations between
the sexes... the father standing in awe of his son, and the son neither
respecting nor fearing his parents, in order to assert what he calls
independence... the teacher fears and panders to his pupils, who in turn
despise their teachers and attendants... You would never believe -
unless you had seen it for yourself - how much more liberty the domestic
animals have in a democracy. The dog comes to resemble is mistress, as
the proverb has it. They are in the habit of walking about the streets
with a grand freedom, and bump into people they meet if they don't get
out of their way. Everything is full of this spirit of liberty....
What it adds up to is this, you find that the minds of the citizens
become so sensitive that the least vestige of restraint is resented as
intolerable, till finally, as you know, in their determination to have
no master they disregard all laws written or unwritten.
Thus Plato describes how democracy deteriorates. At first it's a light
hearted disregard for the ideals of statesmanship and honour, but
gradually the decline becomes progressively more serious. Perhaps one
could say that Democracy is the most philosophically attractive system,
but it fails to take into account the tendency of humans, without upward
pressure, to languor and decline.
For a feeling of life in authoritarian Sparta, by contrast, consider
this quote about the education of male children:
A child deemed worth raising is given to its mother to be cared for
until the age of 7, although during the day, it accompanies its
father... picking up Spartan customs by osmosis... Children are barefoot
to encourage them to move swiftly, and they are encouraged to learn to
withstand the elements by having only one outfit. Children are never
satiated with food or fed fancy dishes.
At the age of 7 the boys are organized into divisions 60 strong, living
in barracks under the supervision of an elder youth. There they are
encouraged to give their loyalty to their fellows rather than their
families. They are intentionally underfed and if they want more food
must hunt or raid. After dinner, the boys sing songs of war, history,
and morality, or the eiren quizzes them, training their memory, logic,
and ability to speak laconically. The boys play ball games, ride, swim,
wrestle and do gymnastics. They sleep on reeds and suffer floggings --
silently, or they suffer them again.
At 18, the young men become reserve members of the Spartan army. At 20
they become full members and are finally permitted to marry but continue
to live in barracks and compete for a place among the the royal guard of
honour. Any who do not successfully pass through the agoge [educational
system] are denied Spartan citizenship.
Sparta did not produce philosophers like Socrates, historians like
Thucydides or artists like Phidias, that was not its goal, instead it
produced the best fighters in the world. Their extreme bravery has been
immortalised by the film "The 300 Spartans" which tells the story of a
small unit who willingly sacrificed their lives by engaging the entire
Persian Army. Their formidable fighting prowess blocked the only road
through which the massive invading army could pass, delaying the Persian
assault for three days, giving the Athenian fleet time to prepare, and
possibly saving the entire Greek world from defeat.
It is said that Spartan King Leonidas who commanded the small unit was
convinced that he would die. He told his wife who, after encouraging
him, asked what she should do afterwards. He replied "Marry a good man
and have good children". The Persian King Xerxes laughed when he saw the
small force but his advisers warned him "they are as brave as any man
living, and together they are the best warriors on earth".
Xerxes sent emissaries offering to make Leonidas ruler of all Greece if
he joined with him. Leonidas answered: "If you had any knowledge of the
noble things of life, you would refrain from coveting others'
possessions; but for me to die for Greece is better than to be the sole
ruler over the people of my race". It is said that when one of the
Spartan soldiers was told the Persian arrows would be so numerous as "to
block out the sun", he responded with a characteristically laconic
remark, "so we shall fight in the shade".
We can see that Ancient Greece was a time of intense idealism, personal
self sacrifice and social cohesion. Democracy was accused of corrupting
this structure, of creating moral decline and cowardice. Perhaps we can
say that Plato was a modernist who rebelled against historical
traditions and proffered an advanced new values system based on
progressive intellectual and spiritual analysis. This elite
revolutionary movement began in the democracy of Athens, but the
philosophy that took hold of the masses was instead a postmodernism in
which traditions were simply discarded without a compensating new value
system. As this un-idealistic philosophy took hold society gradually
failed, both as a result of internal chaos and Darwinian competition
with its neighbours. Some will see a parallel with what they consider to
be today’s increasingly rudderless democratic societies. Many Westerners
find the self sacrificing idealism of the Chinese people so
extraordinary they can only attribute it to government indoctrination.
One of my favourite moral dilemmas which I ask people in both the West
and the East is this: Suppose, hypothetically, it was discovered that
your blood, and your blood alone, by some genetic anomaly, contained the
cure for Aids. Unfortunately, in order to mass produce the cure the
government must take your life. Would you volunteer? The majority of
people in the West say no. In China almost everyone says yes. This
Western moral choice would have been inconceivable both to the old
fashioned Spartans and more modern idealists like Plato. I suspect too,
that even our great grandparents would have been horrified.
From “China Today”:
In many cultures it is taboo to raise the topic of death in everyday
discourse, but this is not the case with the Chinese people. To them
life and death are a common conversational topic. Their matter of fact
approach is illustrated in the sayings: "Human life is nothing but a
stage over which the sun and the moon function as two spotlights"...
"Life is not to be rejoiced as death is not to be resented".
This could be construed as negative on the grounds that it encourages
hopeless passivity at the prospect and inevitability of death, viewing
life as something to be muddled through in the comforting knowledge, as
described in the Chinese saying, that "The misery one suffers in life is
no worse or greater than the death of their heart". Waiting for the
Damocles sword of death to fall and make an end of it means that to be
or not to be is no longer a question, as living life this way is in
itself a kind of death.
From another point of view, however, the Chinese Daoist attitude toward
death can engender a positive life stance. Acceptance of death's
inevitability gives rise to a sense of meaning and purpose in the
natural passage from birth to death that motivates a person to make the
most out of it, treasuring every minute. The knowledge that time is on
the wing and can never be recaptured creates a sense of mission and
social commitment. The resultant redoubling of effort and hard work so
as to live life to the full extends the significance of an existence
within society into history. Transcending the mortal limitations that
arise from the mystique of death thus makes it possible to handle
hardship, difficulty, misery and suffering. This, in turn, creates a
particular mindset, most obvious in revolutionaries and religious
martyrs, who willingly devote their waking hours to worthy causes and
sacrifice themselves for the sake of their ideals. In Confucianism there
is also the idealized character junzi (superior man), who is expected to
give up his life unthinkingly in the interests of preservation and
advancement of humanity. Such a spirit of devotion can arise only from a
positive conception of death.
This article mentions also the concept of the “superior man”. Plato’s
objections to democracy revolve around the inequality of mankind and the
quest for perfection which is a central feature of many Eastern
religions. Christianity teaches equality and utopia, all good men go to
heaven, are equal in the eyes of the Lord and perfect (divine
redemption). Adherents of reincarnation believe instead in spiritual
progression (self redemption), in this framework there is no equality or
complete perfection. These two opposing world views, one active, one
passive, are said to underlie the right wing vs left wing political
viewpoint.
Returning to earth, the Greeks also objected to Democracy on purely
practical grounds. Democratic decision making was too often seen as
flawed, and faced with the difficult decisions that had to be made
during the Peloponnesian War it led to defeat. Here is a very famous
quote from Plato's Republic about the problems of democratic politicking:
Suppose the following to be the state of affairs on board a ship or
ships. The captain is larger and stronger than any of the crew, but a
bit deaf and short-sighted, and similarly limited in seamanship. The
crew are quarrelling with each other about how to navigate the ship,
each thinking he ought to be at the helm; yet they have never learned
the art of navigation and cannot say anyone ever taught it them, or that
they spent any time studying it; indeed they say it can’t be taught and
are ready to murder anyone who says it can. They spend all their time
milling round the captain and doing all they can to get him to give them
the helm. If one faction is more successful than another, their rivals
may kill them and throw them overboard, lay out the honest captain with
drugs or drink or in some other way, take control of the ship, help
themselves to what’s on board, and turn the voyage into the sort of
drunken pleasure-cruise you would expect. Finally, they reserve their
admiration for the man who knows how to lend a hand in controlling the
captain by force or fraud; they praise his seamanship and navigation and
knowledge of the sea and condemn everyone else as useless. They have no
idea that the true navigator must study the seasons of the year, the
sky, the stars, the winds and all other subjects appropriate to his
profession if he is to be really fit to control a ship...
All those mercenary individuals, whom the many call Sophists and whom
they [criticize for spin and deception]... in fact, teach nothing but
the opinion of the many... I might compare them to a Wild Animal Trainer
who must study the tempers and desires of the mighty strong beast he
feeds, must learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and
from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning
of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he
is soothed or infuriated. And you may suppose further, that when, by
continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he
calls this knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he
proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by
the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this
honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust,
all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute he
tends. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and
evil to be that which he dislikes; and he can give no other account of
them except that the just and noble are the necessary, having never
himself seen, and having no power of explaining to others the nature of
either, or the difference between them, which is immense...
Do you really think, as people so often say, that our youth are
corrupted by Sophists... Are not the public...the greatest of all
Sophists? Do they not... fashion them after their own hearts? When they
... sit down at assembly... and there is a great uproar, and they praise
some things which are being said or done, and blame other things,
equally exaggerating both, shouting and clapping their hands, and the
sound of their praise or blame echoes and redoubles around the assembly
-- at such a time will not a young man's heart, as they say, leap within
him? Will any training enable him to stand firm against this
overwhelming flood of popular opinion? Or will he be carried away? Thus,
will he do as they do, and as they are, such will he be?
All this has parallels with the 20th Century rise of the "Political
Class" which refers to a shift in the balance of power away from the
establishment and towards a new generation of professional politicians
whose policy much more closely reflects the opinions of the voting
public. For example, critics accuse the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
elected in 1997 of introducing new levels of 'spin' to democratic
government. Blair developed very close relations with the media and
employed a tabloid newspaper editor as government spokesman. Opinion
polls suggest the next elected prime minister of the UK may be David
Cameron. He claims to be the "Heir to Blair", similarly courts the media
and engages in spin, and was once famously caught demonstrating his
commitment to the environment by cycling to work while a Lexus carrying
his briefcase secretly followed behind. Although the general public
complain about spin, they clearly fail to work with political argument
at much more than the superficial or emotional level, which is, of
course, the cause of the problem. This is not to say that education
levels today are worse than before, in the past the general public
probably tended to set more store by the perceived personality of their
King than they did his policy. The Roman Emperor Caligula was popular
with his people because, like Princess Dianna, he projected an endearing
public profile, neither his real personality nor his policy making
actually deserved merit.
In 300BC Plato's student Aristotle argued that rule should be by an
elite consisting of propertied citizens, judged by their fellows to be
worthy, and willing to abstain from trade and pursue virtue over all
else. Aristotle taught Philip II of Macedonia and his son Alexander the
Great. Philip conquered all of Greece, and the insatiably ambitious
Alexander, at the head of a united army, went on to the conquer much of
the known world. Unlike the Spartans, Alexander's philosophy was not at
all nationalistic, which gave him much greater strength as opponents
were fully absorbed as equals into his empire and his armies. Alexander
did not consider himself a tyrant, but rather a liberator. Much to the shock
of his people he said: "I only distinguish people by their virtues... I
consider all peoples, black or white, as equals... I wish you to be my
partners and not just members of our commonwealth...". To an even
greater extent that the Spartan-Athenian conflict, Alexander's
extraordinary achievement probably demonstrated that, if the goal of
government is simply military power, authoritarianism was, in Ancient
Greece, by far the superior form of government.
More recently examples of outstanding military success under
authoritarian government include the achievements of the evil dictator
Stalin in turning a poor rural society into an industrialised superpower
capable of defeating another autocratic superpower, Hitler's Germany.
Shortly after the 1917 Russian Revolution in which Tsar Nicholas II was
deposed the Bolsheviks took power. They called their economic policy
"War Communism". All industry was nationalized, private enterprise
became illegal and food was distributed in a centralized way. Strict
discipline was introduced and strikers could be shot. The results were
disastrous and by 1922 industrial output was just 13% of its pre World
War One level. Lenin then introduced the "New Economic Policy" which
restored some measure of private enterprise especially in agriculture.
Eventually agricultural and industrial production was restored to its
pre World War One level.
In 1928 Joseph Stalin took control and replaced the New Economic Policy
with a series of "Five-Year Plans". These called for a highly ambitious
program of state-guided crash industrialization and the collectivisation
of agriculture. Stalin employed foreign experts, e.g. British engineer
Stephen Adams, to instruct workers and improve manufacturing processes.
With seed capital unavailable and virtually no modern infrastructure,
Stalin's government financed industrialization by confiscating wealth
and reducing wages. By 1933 workers' real earnings sank to about
one-tenth of the 1926 level. The death toll from famine in the Soviet
Union at this time is estimated at between five and ten million people.
In addition vast numbers of people were essentially enslaved and forced
to do unpaid labour. The archives record that about 800 thousand were
executed, 1.7 million died in the Gulag and 400 thousand perished during
forced resettlement.
The brutal policy was, however, successful and achieved rapid
industrialization from a very low economic base. Stalin essentially
created an economic super power from a third world country, but at
horrendous cost. Without Stalin, Hitler probably would have won the war.
Stalin's army killed more German soldiers than Churchill's or
Roosevelt's.
It is true that Russia subsequently declined, but Stalin's adoption of
naive socialist economic policy made this inevitable. After Russia the
UK contributed the most to Hitler's defeat, but Churchill also adopted
many authoritarian policies in order to win the war.
Socialism, NIMBYism, and the Environment
The expansion of the democratic Roman Republic put the average Italian's
income under increasing pressure from foreign competition. The rich,
however, with investments abroad, profited from this "globalisation",
thus income inequality rose dramatically. In 130BC two politicians, the
brothers Gracchus, sought to parcel out public land to dispossessed
peasant farmers. Many wealthy senators feared the brother's policy, and
both eventually met a violent death. Nevertheless, the popularity of
redistributive policy was not crushed, and the succeeding era of
instability and civil war eventually left people so exhausted by the
democratic process that in 44BC the popular politician Julius Caesar was
made “Dictator for Life”.
After abandoning democracy, Rome grew more quickly despite the
occasional bad emperor such as Caligula (In fact Rome had a primitive
safeguard against poor Emperors - the Praetorian Guard simply murdered
them. Such was Caligula's fate after just fours year. He was replaced
with Claudius, an able Emperor whose legacy includes the conquest of
Britain). The empire is though to have reached the zenith of its power
around 180AD during the reign of the “five good emperors”. Edward
Gibbon, in “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”
describes this period as follows: "If a man were called to fix the
period in the history of the world during which the condition of the
human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation,
name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of
Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute
power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom". Heretics today do not,
of course, advocate an emperor; but the point being made here is that
historical analysis frequently does not support the economic superiority
of democracy.
History began repeating itself in 1848 when the Russian philosopher Karl
Marx and German philosopher Frederick Engels argued, amongst other
things, for "common ownership of the means of production". Marxism
challenged and changed government around the world. Russia eventually
became a socialist dictatorship under the Bolsheviks, and many countries
in Western Europe became increasingly socialist democracies.
Eventually socialism was proven economically unviable regardless of its
philosophical attractiveness. Instead of common ownership, competition
for capital in an unequal world turned out to be vital in ensuring both
motivation and efficient allocation. Socialism did not necessarily leave
its people starving, but it left them so much poorer than their
neighbours that they rebelled against it. Furthermore, it ran contrary
to man's competitive nature and socialist countries were forced to adopt
increasingly brutal techniques for keeping public order in the face of
public resistance.
Heretics draw parallels between socialism and democracy. They are both
egalitarian systems (material / political equality) that fail to offer a
mechanism by which power can be allocated efficiently. If democracy
fails in business, why should it work in government? Are not the
challenges of government just as hard as those in the world of business?
Democracy is certainly an anathema to Military. Students are not
allocated marks on the basis of democracy, their more learned professors
decide. Democracy doesn't rule human family relations, nor relations in
the Animal Kingdom. Indeed, how many large successful organizations in
any field really employ democracy? For all the modern idealism
Churchill's idea of necessary evil keep creeping back. Is democracy in
fact a singularly unsuccessful model which is unapplied to any other
field of endeavour, but which exists in government only to prevent
greater evil? If so, is every other possible model really so at risk of
greater evil?
It is ironic that the fall of the socialist soviet union is so often
offered as evidence of the economic superiority of democracy, when in
fact, both socialism and democracy share so many parallels. The leading
authoritarian power of today, China, has long since abandoned socialism.
The inability of most emerging democracies to follow its example partly
explains the vast growth differential.
What about the USA? Although socialism was popular with the masses many
in the elite feared it. Where the elite resisted the will of the masses
popular revolt often ended in socialist tyranny. Government in the USA
also resisted the popular tide, eg with the 1918 Sedition Act, but much
more effectively. Indeed the fight against socialism and communism became a
cornerstone of American policy. Up until at least the 1990s the USA was
arguably the least socialist country in the world, even today it remains
the only major industrialised nation without universal heath care.
Arguably the economic success of the USA today once hinged on the
ability of its politicians to manipulate or override their public. Alan
Greenspan has described democracy as a safety release value. In the USA,
a notionally democratic system manipulated by the elite allowed the air
to escape safely from the socialist pressure cooker. Thus the entire
cold war, escalated by the US, did not necessarily reflect a genuine
reflection of the Soviet threat, but rather a fight, by the American
elite, to suppress a political system which the masses would have
embraced (this is before George Bush, he probably represents the end of
US establishment politics and the real beginning of popular Democracy).
However, although this smoke screen of fear and misinformation had the
laudable goal of manipulating democracy, the loss of transparency became
so great that even the elite began to loose clarity. Today these dangers
stalk Putin, and some modern Liberal Authoritarians are more wary.
In the UK, by contrast, thanks to the creation of the Labour party which
was funded by the Trade Unions, democratic government began embracing
socialism in the 1920s. Ramsay MacDonald rose from humble origins to
become the first Labour Prime Minister in 1924 although his first
government lasted less than one year. Labour returned to power in 1929
but was soon overwhelmed by the crisis of the Great Depression. In 1931
he formed a "National Government" in which a majority of MPs were from
the Conservatives. As a result, he was expelled from the Labour Party
who accused him of 'betrayal'. Nevertheless, socialism had taken root.
At the end of the Second World War
the pace of socialist change in the UK picked up considerably. Experts in financial markets
began moving funds offshore, eg investment in the non-democratic UK
colony of the Bahamas boomed. The Attlee government responded to this
capital flight with foreign exchange controls which lasted for the next
30 years or so. By the 1970s the UK was one of the most socialist
countries in the advanced world with a marginal rate of income tax
peaking at 98%. Some socialist policies, such as the creation of the
Nation Health Service, were successful; but many others were not.
Indeed, the economic health of the nation deteriorated to such an extent
that in 1976 the UK was put onto an IMF program. Eventually the UK
electorate tired of socialism and in 1979 they elected as Prime Minister
the pragmatic right wing politician Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher’s
reforms, which were based on received economic wisdom rather than ground
breaking new ideas, eventually transformed the UK from being one of the
poorest countries in Western Europe to one of the wealthiest. France
never sank as low as the UK in the 1970s, consequently the electorate
have not fully tired of socialism, therefore they still refuse to allow
Thatcherite reforms in France, and as a result they are poorer than the
UK electorate today. Critics of democracy claim that this example
typifies the erratic and snail paced evolution of democratic economic
policy.
On a more micro level the potential advantages of authoritarian
infrastructure / planning permission decisions are even more apparent.
It is interesting to compare Beijing's new airport with Heathrow’s
Terminal 5 in the UK. China's stunning new airport was designed by
Normal Foster and is currently over twice as large as the next largest
airport in the world (including Heathrow Terminals 1-5 added together).
The total time from design, through construction, to opening of the
airport was just four years. By contrast the possibility of a new
Heathrow terminal was first mooted in 1982. In 1989 an architect was
selected to design it. In 1992 BAA announced it would be submitting a
planning application. In 1993 the application was submitted. In 1995 a
public enquiry began considering it. In 1999 they gave the go ahead. In
2001 the government validated the result and gave the project planning
permission. In 2008 construction was completed and the airport opened.
The democratic process arguably turned a 4 year project into a 25 year
project. Even after all this, no new runways were built at Heathrow
leaving the problem of chronic congestion undressed. Many experts also
argue that replacing Heathrow with a new airport in the Thames Estuary
linked by a high speed train to central London (China’s maglev airport
train could make the journey in fifteen minutes) would be a much better
option not least because flight paths over land could be virtually
abolished. However, UK politicians regard this option as hopelessly
ambitious and therefore impractical in the democratic UK regardless of
its theoretical advantages.
Many people on all sides of the debate believe that the democratic model
is struggling to respond to three huge issues: globalisation, climate
change and the depletion of natural resources. The democratic system can
not easily adapt to a radically changing world in which difficult and
painful decisions have to be made. For example, heavily unionised US car
manufacturers are left trailing by foreign competitors. In the African
county of Mali the average woman gives birth to 7.38 children, but in
authoritarian China the ‘One Child Policy’ has cut fertility rates from
over 5 births per woman to 1.7 today. Although global warming threatens
the planet, the irrational masses in democratic Europe continue to fight
over the merits of nuclear power, meanwhile the rational Chinese
government prepares for cheap CO2 free nuclear mass production.
Of course there is more to human government than economic or military
power, and these concerns have to addressed as well.
Enlightened Policy Making and Education Levels
Heretics argue that within developed countries today, enlightened policy
making often appears inversely correlated to democratic power. To
understand this, consider the following extract from an article by Adam
Posen deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International
Economics:
"The irony for those who have been congenitally suspicious of
excessive power being concentrated in Brussels is that the more the
central body has had authority over economic policy, the greater the
liberalising influence - whether it was the US breaking down barriers to
interstate commerce or the Commission implementing the single market.
Where and when the member states have retained dominance over regulation
and enforcement, as in insurance or property in the US, or in state aid
to favoured companies or professional certifications in the EU, the
results have been illiberal and economically harmful.
"The alternative to a strong Brussels is not a decentralised free market
and minimal government interference. It is greater political capture of
economic policymaking and abuse of authority by member states and
sub-national governments. Politicisation is more likely and more
obstructive to market competition when done by local or member
governments than when the federal authority has competence. Subsidiarity
is in many cases an invitation to corruption, entrenchment of incumbents
and horse-trading of handouts. Too many political veto points equals too
many opportunities for extortion."
As the power for self interested voting is diluted policy improves - we
see the worst policy at local level, better policy at national level,
and the best policy at international level. At the heart of this
argument the heretics are arguing that government policy is in fact
mostly obvious, and democratic voting often encourages only ill advised
self interested decision making.
Even some conventional thinkers have lost faith in democracy for Africa,
and many now believe there may be a educational tipping point before
which democracy can not thrive. In the late nineteenth century, the
European imperial powers engaged in a major territorial scramble and
occupied most of the continent of Africa, creating many colonial nation
states, and leaving only two independent nations. The colonial
governments were, of course, completely undemocratic as far as black
representation was concerned. In the 1950s Tunisia was the first colony
to win independence and Zimbabwe, in 1980, was the last. However, in
South Africa & Zimbabwe the large white population developed a system of
second-class citizenship for other races. This system followed the
example of the Jim Crow Laws in the USA which circumvented having to
give black people the power to vote in Southern States, introduced after
the abolition of slavery and repealed in 1965. As a result the white
South Africans were able to retain control until an equitable settlement
was forced upon them by the prospect of civil war in 1994. Since the end
of colonization Africa has failed to develop and in many case the
standards of living are though to be lower than in colonial days.
Despite democracy, constant tribal conflict, corruption in every
politician and poor policy decisions have dogged the continent. More
recently the advantages South Africa gained by having more sophisticated
management of their country until 1994 appear to be coming apart.
Remarkably, it appears that an authoritarian government of educated
colonialists, set only upon exploiting the region for profit with little
or no regard for the local people, offers the uneducated Africans a
higher standard of living that democracy. Hence some are welcoming
China's recent increasing involvement in Africa.
Heretics, however, cleverly argue increasing advancement may not help
democracy as much as expected. Increasing levels of knowledge in society
are, and will always be, accompanied by increasing levels of knowledge
inequality. For example, Newton's three laws of motion are taught in
today's secondary schools, but by contrast, the latest results in
quantum physics are, and will always be, far beyond all but a handful.
Such specialization is a natural product of advancement, it is not
limited to the scientific world, and it certainly includes the world of
economics & politics. In the democracy of Ancient Greece the citizens
could have rolled up their sleeves and probably designed together a half
decent new city, a new weapon or anything else. Today, however, communal
thinking could not possibly improve the design of a modern rocket, a
public transport policy or much else. Since democracy gives value to
average thought, in an advanced society the elite thinkers on matters of
economics and politics are likely to find democratic decision making
increasing anachronistic. Interestingly, it is financial market traders
and investors who have begun advocating authoritarianism, exactly as
would be expected, since they are arguably the best (certainly the most
highly paid) specialists in economic trends.
Liberal Authoritarian Models in More Detail
The orthodox argue that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts
absolutely", and only democracies are protected against these evils.
Although democracies have in fact committed many evils, for example the
killing of Native Americans and Aborigines, the orthodox argue that the
risk of one all powerful dictator going bad is much higher. Corruption
does not lead only to evil, it also, as Alan Greenspan and others have
explained, inhibits growth.
The heretics acknowledge that authoritarian government has challenges
but they propose solutions which they believe are workable. For example,
today's authoritarian thinkers do not advocate rule by one all powerful
dictator, especially not a dictator who cares about personal financial
gain, or a dictator who rules for life.
The most radical models envisage a ruling council of well paid experts
such as the Central Bankers, the IMF, the UK Judiciary etc. In the UK
the hereditary and politically appointed Lords could be replaced with a
small number of experts perhaps selected by an international institution
such as the IMF. The role of the House of Lords and House of Commons
could be swapped so that the elected representatives in the House of
Commons would only have the right to veto and propose legislation.
Imagine the House of Commons acting as shareholders and the Lords acting
as management - "UK Plc". Government departments would be headed by
House of Lords members rather than elected politicians. Alternatively
the role of the House of Commons could be entirely abolished and the
shareholder role could be achieved by democratic referendums.
Material corruption must be safeguarded against, but it is not the only
risk. The extreme vanity seen in democratically elected politicians such
as Nicolas Sarkozy must be avoided - these elite rulers should have only
the barest contact with the media. Board members of public companies do
not give unauthorised media interviews, neither should members of the
council (besides ensuring against the corrupting influence of vanity,
remember that fickle public reaction and focus on the human element
ensures the old adage that 'all politicians end in failure'). China's
leaders allow themselves to be seen but rarely address the public in
emotive ways (The Prime Ministers high profile response to the
Earthquake was a controversial exception). Such an auspicious group
should be far less likely to commit evil than the masses, and also far
more capable of tearing down bureaucracy and maximizing economic growth.
Some worry that such an illustrious council would not give sufficient
attention to the welfare of the poor, ignorant or lazy etc. However,
this issue can be dealt with by feedback from opinion polls, then
guidelines and statistical targets. Although the council would no doubt
have a tendency towards Utilitarianism (pursuit of the greatest good
without care for distribution), compromise is possible.
Injecting competition into rule is also vital - monopolies often
stagnate and fail. The UK Judiciary is well known for it's humanity and
lack of corruption, but some argue that it is slow to adopt new ideas or
respond to change; eg deciding to what extent cherished humanitarian
principles should be compromised by the publics increasing intolerance
of crime. In addition to limited terms for council members, a
constitutional requirement to experiment with policy can be built into
government. For example: Is a free market in education supported by
vouchers a good idea because it will raise standards or a bad idea
because it will concentrate and amplify underachievement? Experimenting
with policy and measuring the results is the only certain way to answer
these questions. Competition amongst ideas followed by the measurement
of their success also provides feedback on the quality of the council
members. Thus the council can employ the same tactics as a corporation
which promotes or demotes its employees on the basis of their successes
and failures.
Liberal Authoritarianism has its roots in the idea that economic policy
today is well understood by experts (but not by the masses). The
advancement of society and the pragmatic resolution of the
philosophically difficult socialism vs capitalism debate has made it
possible. As a result the heretics sometimes envisage an almost global
system of enlightened government devoid of nationalistic interest. In
the same way that large corporations employ chief executives of any
nationality and operate across borders some heretics imagine government
working in a similar way. Liberal Authoritarian advocates often touch
upon Cosmopolitanism (Cosmopolitanism is the idea that all of humanity
belongs to a single moral community and may entail some sort of world
government. Cosmopolitans are moral universalists: they believe that all
humans, and not merely compatriots or fellow-citizens, come under the
same moral standards. The boundaries between nations, states, cultures
or societies are therefore morally irrelevant).
However, others argue that Liberal Authoritarianism is all about
improving economic efficiency using economic expertise and it should
interfere as little as possible with national moral preferences. Indeed
frequent referendums for soft issues would help endear the public to
authoritarian economic policy. For example: Should Euthanasia be
legalised? Let the people decide. Should the names of Sex Offenders be
published? Economists don't care. Should Tampons be subject to VAT? The
fall in tax revenue can be made up elsewhere. Should the UK host the
Olympics? Give the people the numbers and let them choose. However:
Should the government be allowed to use compulsory purchase orders to
knock down 500,000 existing homes and build something new? Ask for
public input, but let the policy experts decide. Should we build Nuclear
Plants? Leave this one entirely to the scientists and the economists -
it's an important issue and public opinion here is worthless.
In fairness this idea of moral democracy and economic authoritarianism
is more complex. Consider Healthcare. Political gridlock in the USA has
left healthcare to the market and the situation is clearly economically
undesirable with 16% of GDP (highest in world) going on care despite 25%
of the population having no insurance. Universal healthcare looks like
the best policy option even on economic grounds so at least this
decision is easy. Now turning to the UK: Margaret Thatcher spent
approximately 6% of the UK's GDP on healthcare before Tony Blair raised
that to 8% much to the satisfaction of most voters. How should the rate
be set in our liberal oligarchy? An economist could calculate the best
spend by optimising GDP. Given access to antibiotics death / incapacity
levels plunge therefore pushing growth upwards. However, many more
expensive treatments are much less likely to be productive. Clearly this
is the wrong metric - it's a moral issue as well. However, handing the
emotional masses the decision could drive the level irrationally high
(the odds of winning the lottery are pointlessly small but 70% of the UK
public like to play; they simply can not grasp statistics). It's a very
hard problem because we can not get at the utility curves for income vs
heath easily - which is what the experts would try to target according
to the constitution. Nevertheless, it's far more likely to be solved by
a panel of experts and some experimentation than it is by popular
political representatives.
Other ways to reduce the democratic element of UK government would be
to: Delegate more responsibility to Quangoes - an independent treasury
is a popular idea given the tendency of elected governments to run
budget deficits. Remove TV & Radio from
Parliament & Parliamentary Committees which makes Parliament less
political and more intellectual. Punish misleading media coverage of
important current affairs to ensure stories are fair and un-sensational.
Add a multiple choice examination to the ballot paper and ignore
uneducated votes. Give the party with the highest share of the popular
vote complete power without the circus of representative voting (subject
only to the constitution etc). Tony Blair came to power in 1997 wanting,
amongst other things, to build Nuclear Power Stations. However, in order
to win power he was forced to employ popular MPs able to attract the
popular vote. Unfortunately street fighting MPs often prove poor
technocrats, and his government was characterised by constant dissent
and almost no radical reform was actually achieved.
Russia has achieved an authoritarian democracy by controlling the media.
It's a interesting system because in the event of real incompetence,
North Korea style, no amount of manipulation would prevent the
government being ejected. In the meantime, however, the government
massages public opinion in an intelligent direction, and it can also
lift the public. For example, in the USA the FT reported that 30% of
Americans believe, to some extent, in a September 11th CIA conspiracy
theory. If this is the consequence of
a free press, perhaps Plato would encourage us to find ways to constrain
it. The complaint against the Russia system today is that media
censorship may have been used to suppress even reasoned debate of
government failure. Liberal Authoritarian models do not allow this.
Control of the masses might be acceptable, but intelligent dissent must
be allowed.
|