| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Democracy in Decline |
| 2008-06-18 |
| By Tony Blankley The broad, sneering European-elite response to the plucky Irish vote to oppose the further centralization of governmental power in the European Union and the emerging opinion in China suggest that from Brussels to Shanghai, democracy may be losing its appeal. Democracy, broadly understood as government by the people being governed, has been the upward aspiration of Western civilization for about 1,000 years -- and of the rest of the world for about 100 years. Certainly since the Magna Carta in 1215; arguably going back another millennium to when the Germanic tribes selected their chiefs through a more-or-less popular rather than hereditary method. The pace quickened in our Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789, advanced further with Woodrow Wilson's call for the self-determination of nations after World War I. The democratic urge gained further rhetorical support in the post-World War II United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21: "(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. "(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. "(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." Arguably, the aspiration for and expectation of democracy reached its zenith with the fall of the Soviet Union and the prediction that the end of history had been reached in the form of liberal democratic capitalism as practiced in the last decade of the 20th century. But events and experiences I have had in the past week reinforce a growing sense I have had for a few years that the ideal and practice of robust democracy may be seen in history as a quirk of the 18th-20th centuries. I can imagine students 500 years from now studying democracy the way we study medieval history: its rise, its high period, causes of its decline. Admittedly, the rise and aspiration for democracy has not been a line steadily upward. In the 1930s, many in the West thought that both Mussolini's and Hitler's fascisms seemed to work better than Depression-era democracy. For others at the time, the Russian effort at communism seemed the better alternative. But for those of us born in the middle of last century, in the afterglow of democracy's WWII triumph (with, admittedly, a huge assist from Soviet Russia's overwhelming military sacrifices and triumphs on the eastern front), democracy seemed the objective of the entire world. Even the Soviet-controlled nations put the phrase "democratic republic" in their names. And post-colonial governments in Africa all at least talked in terms of democracy. It first hit me with force that democracy may not be a universal goal when I was in Russia in 2005 to discuss my book on radical Islam. Almost everyone I met -- from leading academics, to my driver, to radio talk show hosts, to all sorts of people I met in bars -- loved Putin and were contemptuous of democracy and capitalism. Every Russian I met wanted a strong government, thought democracy is inherently corrupt and useless, and that capitalism is another word for theft. Last week, I was in China and had an opportunity to talk with several Chinese businesspeople -- some top executives, some shopkeepers and, once again, several middle-class people in bars (a small sample out of 1.3 billion Chinese). Each was perfectly content to let the unelected Communist Party run the government, as long as economic growth continued. A point made by several of them (admittedly, all the people I talked with are doing well economically) and also made by a local academic expert is that the rest of Asia is noticing that the Chinese Communist Party-managed economic method is working better than the American democratic capitalism method. I find it melancholy to consider that perhaps people aspire to self-government not because it is the natural and dignified condition of man to be free and self-governing, but merely only if it is likely to turn a quick economic profit. Which brings me to the Irish vote. After a similar vote was lost in 2005 in France and in the Netherlands, the decision of the European elite was to redecide the matter by going around the people and deciding through parliaments (where the fix was in) rather than by plebiscite. Only the Irish insisted on a vote of the people before turning over sovereign power to Brussels bureaucrats. And they voted it down 53-47 percent -- against the loud voices of all the political parties and national leaders. God bless the Irish people. Almost the entire business, political and cultural elite of Europe argue for centralizing EU power in Brussels because it will be good for business (and give Europe a more coherent voice and action in the world). The price for that is to reduce the role of democratically elected government officials and to give more power to unelected governing forces. Is that why partisans risked their lives sniping at Nazi soldiers and throwing homemade bombs at German panzer tanks a mere half-century ago? Is the world getting ready to give up its birthright to self-govern for a mess of pottage? |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #18 In defeat, defiance; In war, resolution; In victory, magnanimity; In peace, goodwill. My, we've had an awful lot of goodwill. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-18 21:44 |
| #17 In the sixth and final volume of his history of WW II Churchill sets forth a theme for the volume which is something along the lines of, "In which the great democracies achieve victory so that they may promptly resume the follies which so nearly cost them their lives." I think that in that phrase Churchill really captured the experience of a democracy which tends to stumble along from crisis to crisis with wild disagreement and seeming stagnation only to finally see public opinion coalesce strongly enough and for a long enough time at the very last moment available to stave off the impending doom du jour. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2008-06-18 20:32 |
| #16 Get it right: We are NOT a democracy in the USA We are a REPUBLIC! |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-18 20:25 |
| #15 FOX NEWS AM > CAVUTO > NEW OIL DRILLING PLAN > US DEMS desire MORE BIG GOVT in return for little to no improvement in the US domestic oil situation = lower oil prices??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-06-18 18:51 |
| #14 "It's all up, up, up since Mao died." Remember that. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-06-18 18:49 |
| #13 Nah, the police state thing isn't all that. People can speak their minds without informers informing on them. You have to really make a nuisance of yourself before the cops will come out and talk to you. I've known people who have taken pictures of illegal street protests, and all that happened was they got a visit from the cops asking to come down to the station for a chat. I second the efficiency thing. China is *hugely* inefficient, which is mostly masked by their huge growth. One thing that you have to remember is that the Chinese economy has *never* gone down in living memory. It's all up, up, up since Mao died. This results in things like people opening businesses with no idea what they're doing, and the business succeeds anyway due to runaway demand. I see small shops open and close all the time, and it's the same story - no plan, no strategy, no marketing. It's just "I'll open the doors and people will flood in." The Chinese are geniunely shocked when they don't, and can't figure out what they did wrong. Really. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-06-18 11:47 |
| #12 ...the rest of Asia is noticing that the Chinese Communist Party-managed economic method is working better than the American democratic capitalism method. Provided one fully believes the statistics put out by the Chinese government, ignores the massive bad bank debt and averts their gaze from recent fuel rationaing efforts among things. The PRC is an economic dynamo, but their "feedback loop" is suboptimal, and this will have its bad effects. A lot of people thought the Japanese "MITI model" would eventually supercede us as well. How'd that work out? |
| Posted by: charger 2008-06-18 11:30 |
| #11 The other thing to keep in mind is that China and Russia are police states. The bad thing about police states is that they work--if by "work," you mean "succeed at controlling the behavior of their citizens so that they do not network together to challenge the established order." Imagine you're a middle-class Chinese guy sitting in the bar with Tony Blankley. Secret policemen and their informers could be anywhere, even sitting next to you and Tony. (Hell, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility, from your perspective, that this gweilo Tony Blankley is in cahoots with the secret police. You vividly remember what happened the last time Chinese people got enthusiastic about democracy. The foreigner asks you what you think of democracy, and whether China should adopt it. How do you answer? Unless you are unusually brave and idealistic, you give an answer that is some acceptable variant of the Communist party line--because that is the answer that is least likely to get you dragged from your home in the middle of the night and summarily executed. Do people really feel this way in their heart of hearts? No way to tell. |
| Posted by: Mike 2008-06-18 11:17 |
| #10 A very important concept of democracy is *why* it is so popular. It is *not* popular because it promulgates liberty and freedom, those are just both requirements, and side effects of democracy. It is popular because it is more *efficient* than any other system. From peasant to prince, democracy points out the obvious, that just about anyone can be better at *something*, so they should have a right to put in their two cents. This is why that once the idea of voting became known (via TV game shows) in China, even the most ignorant peasant said "Hey, that's a good idea!" This is why when the local communist party guy shows up and tells them to do something that they know won't work, somebody pipes up and says "Hey, let's vote on it!", instead of everybody just humbly doing what they are told. Typically, the communist party guy is perplexed and upset. They have no easy answer as to why everybody should just shut up and do what they're told. The end result is that a lot of low level communist bosses have realized that they get better *results*, when they work with consensus instead of forcing their ideas on others. And boom!, you have one less communist. Because even though he doesn't know it, he has advanced the cause of democracy. Democracy wins because it is just plain *better*, a fact that angers those whose philosophies go head to head with democracy and lose. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-06-18 10:56 |
| #9 Sure, they're perfectly happy to let the people in charge run things, so long as it works. Unfortunately, oligarchies deteriorate, corrupt oligarchies even quicker. The one thing that can be said about the American system is that, terrible as it is, it's better than anything else that's been tried, in an experiment that has run successfully for over two centuries thus far. The EU is the French system writ large, which swings from pole to pole every generation or so -- it's the Fifth Republic still, correct? China goes directly from chaos to emperor, and in their historic experience the emperor, no matter how corrupt, is still better than chaos... they know nothing else, and dare not be interested. On the other hand, look at the enthusiasm for democracy in Iraq, which has the rest of the region's rulers quietly quaking. Granted, there is a big contingent there that look at it as a new version of inter-tribal jostling, and another that see it as Shia vs. Sunni vs. Kurds, but more and more understand its power to get things done at the local level, where things never have gotten done before. So I don't accept that Democracy is in decline, hypocrisy being the compliment that vice pays to virtue and all. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-06-18 10:02 |
| #8 I wouldn't put 1789 (or at least 1793) as a stepping stone in the improvement of Humanity. We can make a parallel with ancient Athenes. Given that slaves and metecs (foreigners or peole with foreigna ancestors) were 90% of the population and had no right to vote (not to mentrion woimen) you can say that Athens was an aritocracy not a democracy. But Athens still invented the idea and andvanced towards it. I'm only a mild fan od democracy, or more precisely, representative democracy<:i> I am. For a simple reason: it is best to piss the gfew thanthe many. Provided of course that the amount of displeasure caused to the minority is limited. That uis why contrry to what leftist says democarcy is not the dictatorship of the minority: governmen's action is limited by tseparation of powers, the law, and teh Constitution who puts limits to what governemnt can do to change the law. Also, elections are not enough to have democracy. In European countries electoral systems have been designed to keep the peole as far away as having his say than possible. For instance in proportional regimes like preferrd in most of europe it is the Party (sometimes through internal process who are everythig but democratoic) who presnts candidtes and decides who will be in forts positions in the list (ie will ever get elected) and who will not. And the people have nothin,g to say. The Party could prefectly get a known pedophile elected by placciong him high enough on the list and the people could do little about it. After the elctions Parties negotiate a governement coalition completely behind the backs of the voters. Finally it is a couple of small parties who have the real power because it is them who are the king makers by allying with one of the big parties. In fact ythe lections are only a varnnish upon a system as antidemocratic than the feodal system of yore. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-06-18 09:32 |
| #7 I can't give you that. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-06-18 09:30 |
| #6 I don't vote, because I don't care about the so-called "democracy" we live in in France, I simply have no stake and no interest in what goes on in that scam, ... Senseless. Posted by: anonymous5089 Give me a cottage in Hippolyte, plenty of Pessac-Leognant and I won't care either Anonymous. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-06-18 08:58 |
| #5 And I'd be very ok in not belonging to the voting demographics, too, as long as the system is just (not fair), efficient, and again, enforces freedom-based rights. I don't vote, because I don't care about the so-called "democracy" we live in in France, I simply have no stake and no interest in what goes on in that scam, and, deep down, I really see no valid reason why my vote should count as much as an engineer's, a businessman's, or a family father with five kids'... Senseless. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-06-18 08:23 |
| #4 I wouldn't put 1789 (or at least 1793) as a stepping stone in the improvement of Humanity. Anyway, to put it bluntly, I'm only a mild fan od democracy, or more precisely, representative democracy. I'd be very happy and pleased with a republican system that runs smoothly, ensure stability (not unlike the very well-balanced US sytem), order and prosperity without sacrificing natural rights (property, freedom of movement, speech, thought and religion), but would be based say on the votes of only a restricted part of the general population... excluding those who derive their income from the State (welfare or civil servants) would be for example a great step in curing some of the french political ailments. I'm not a believer in universal suffrage. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-06-18 08:19 |
| #3 Hmm, one-party, unelected government combined with private enterprise... sounds a lot like National Socialism. |
| Posted by: Elmavirong Johnson3058 2008-06-18 08:14 |
| #2 > argue for centralizing EU power in Brussels because it will be good for business It won't be good for Business, it will be good for their big businesses because it will remove competitors from THEIR businesses. It's corporate socialism. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-06-18 08:09 |
| #1 ....democracy may be losing its appeal. I was in China and had an opportunity to talk with several Chinese businesspeople -- some top executives, some shopkeepers and, once again, several middle-class people in bars (a small sample out of 1.3 billion Chinese). Each was perfectly content to let the unelected Communist Party run the government, as long as economic growth continued. Further evidence of the decline not mentioned by Mr. Blankley, would be our own democratic presidential candidate and his delerious, following hordes. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-06-18 07:56 |