Some people are predicting that the current economic crisis is going to lead to the collapse of national governments, leading to a power vacuum at national level. See this exchange between me and contributer Tim Auld. I accept that there will be changes of government, as voters show their displeasure at the way things are turning out, but that is not to say that thare is any threat to the system itself.
One thing that is certain is that now is a very bad time for governments to be spending billions of pounds or dollars on decarbonising their economy which will only make matters worse.
I never said "power vacuum". Someone will keep the seat warm, at least for a while, but their influence will wane.
ReplyDelete'Decarbonising' can be very economical and beneficial. In fact we're assured of disaster if we do not implement alternate means and models of growing food. This may be the single most important policy government can affect right now. Unfortunately unelected corporate interests put constraints on progress in this area.
The response of governments in UK and the USA to the present situation is summed up nicely in This piece by Janet Daly. It is only a strong national government that will stand up for its people, and in a democracy if it fails to do that it is doomed.
ReplyDeleteWow, that's really sly of you! You get to be right even if a democracy collapses because you can blame it on the incumbent party not standing up for democratic principles. If democracy is not resistant to such policies then how is it not a failure? You espouse elections, but clearly they are insufficient to prevent a government making bad decisions.
ReplyDeleteOf course I get to be right - it's my blog! No, seriously I am being consistent here. Democracy may lead to individual governments under-performing, but the system gives power to the people. When the people feel strongly enough change is inevitable. Democracy doesn't collapse, but power is gently handed over.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but your answer doesn't adequately explain how collapse of society (not necessarily democracy itself) is avoided.
ReplyDeleteYour remarks imply that the election cycle is a guarantee that the problems faced and created by [weak] governments can be solved by successive ones. Your comment (#2) above contradicts that. Can you clarify what leads a democracy to be "doomed" when another party can be voted in? Could you provide a definition of "doomed"? Is "doomed" the same as collapse (which in this context is to break down to a less sophisticated structure).
How do you account for unelected corporate interests and failed ideologies such as modern economics (which you have criticised yourself) participating in the new government? How exactly do the people have power over them?
When times are desperate, how does democracy cope with popular but dangerous leaders promising to solve the problems of the day? Note that this is how the Nazi party was elected in the wake of the Great Depression. Is it your opinion that the Nazi party "under-performed" and that democracy didn't collapse? According to Wikipedia's entry on Weimar Germany: "This attempt to re-establish Germany as a liberal democracy failed with the ascent of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933."
When I said "it is doomed", I meant that elected goverment, not democracy. But of course it is possible for extreme governments to be elected. As you point out Hitler was elected. No system is perfect, but democracy is better than the rest, imo. Do you disagree, in which case what system would you prefer?
ReplyDeleteDemocracy must evolve to deal with new problems as they occur. Co-operation between governments is now becoming more common and that is sensible when it benefits both nations.
People only have power through their governments, though direct action such as strikes and protest marches can exert strong influence. Large multi-national corporations are subject to the law of the land just like everyone else. If things go wrong then the government has to deal with it. The flaws in the free market need to be addressed. It is not perfect, but it works fairly well on the whole.
The big problems lie, not with the democracies, but with the third world ruled by despots like Mugabe. There is no easy answer for them, other than civil war, the outcome of which is likely to be replacing one despot by another.
Global warming is a "problem" for those in affluence whose lives are so comfortable that they have no other more immediate issues to worry about.
You have not inspired confidence in me that democracy can prevent social or political collapse with "No system is perfect, but democracy is better than the rest", whether the claim is true or not. It is a weak argument. I am not interested right now in which is the best system, but in current circumstance, how it will evolve, and how my actions may improve the fortunes of myself and others.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is guided by popular opinion, driven by selfish, short sighted and frivolous motives and blinded to unseen, latent or inconvenient damage. Even half a year ago the majority thought the US economy was strong, and look at it now! How can you have any confidence that complex and fragile ecosystems that we depend on are not being destroyed by our reckless behaviour, or the estimates of resource availability are accurate? You do not evaluate everything, including future events, in your assessment of democracy and your lifestyle. Democracy and its cohort fractional reserve banking does not have experience with a depleting resource base and perpetual economic contraction. Early reports are not promising. You discount the achievements of other systems such as better literacy, health, lower social stratification, and resilience.
Strikes and protests against economists, multi-nationals, or agricultural practices? Most people do not understand what's going on, how can you expect meaningful public discourse and political responses? When politicians fear for their jobs they do as they are now: throw tax payer money around. You will also find that the powerful unelected are able to influence laws to their benefit.
Whether you or I like it or not, we will always have a government. In a democracy government is guided by popular opinion. If you think that is a bad thing, then your other alternative is rule by some unelected person or body. In that case you or I would have no chance of removing them, other than a revolution.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think that any other system would be any better than a democracy? Powerful people and organisations will always have influence over any government.
When you mention the achievements of "other systems", I wonder what you mean? What other system can you name that has achieved better literacy or health than a western democracy? Freedom is also a very important aspect of society. Does your other system allow freedom of speech and movement, or for people to go on strike or attend meetings or rallies to protest?
I never said there was a better system than democracy, you're putting words in my mouth. I am discussing the faults of democracy and what they mean for the future of democratic nations.
ReplyDeleteIf you read Orlov's comparison between the US and the Soviet Union you would know what I mean. For example, providing free education including university with excellent literacy rates that the modern US system can't match in more years. If you dispute his claims, kindly provide evidence.
The modern brand of freedom is a double edged sword. It comes part and parcel with the freedom to self destruct. The most sustainable societies, such as the nomadic tribes of Africa and Australia have a different kind of freedom. They do not have to work much and they are not slaves to their job and possessions. Constraints on behaviour that enable future generations to survive are forged in tradition. If they behaved recklessly their tribe would diminish or die: http://energybulletin.net/node/47833. We can't be separated from ecology. We ignore it at our peril.
I only serve up examples of other systems to contrast the various deficiencies of democracy. Of course there are positive aspects to democracy, but this political chest thumping is not useful.
While I agree that democracy has deficiencies, you have not convinced me that there is anything better. There is no prospect of us going back to the system used by simple tribes. We are a modern complex sociey and we will all have to accept that.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming is being used by some to force a new system on us, but I do not believe it will happen. We must be aware of it and try to prevent it.
In general I am talking about national democracy in which people do not really participate except by infrequent elections and general complaint. Better alternatives must necessarily be implemented at a local scale where the people make decisions for themselves. This is a reversion to tribes of a sort, and has many precedents [1]. It may be on the back of a national democracy, but not necessarily. Once people bear the consequences of their decisions they see the limits of their environment and resources. A big wig in the city will be out of touch with conditions on the ground and large sums of money will lose meaning to them.
ReplyDeleteWhether we will remain a complex society for much longer is a matter of debate. It will fall apart if the necessary conditions are not present. Witness the collapse in global trade as the financial system breaks down.
The best thing you can do to prevent others taking your power is use it yourself, improve your self sufficiency and remove your dependency on the larger, centralised system where decisions are made for you.
[1] http://permaculture.org.au/2009/02/06/building-the-sustainable-economy/