Too Much Democracy in the West?

southsiderosie

An interesting point came up in a thread on the economy, namely that social democracy was a socially and economically unsustainable system. This is a issue that has been explored recently by Francis Fukuyama, who explains his current position in an interview with the FT:

...Fukuyama is best known for his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) in which he stated that liberal democracy was the only way to run a modern state. I get the impression that his support for democracy is now much more conditional than he thought then.

He says: “The way I feel right now is that it’s an open question which system is going to do better in the next while – a high quality authoritarian one or a deadlocked, paralysed, democratic one, with lots of checks and balances? Over the long run, it will be easier to sustain a system with checks and balances, precisely because the checks and balances permit adaptation. You can get rid of a bad leader.

“And, then I think that the normative dimension comes into play because an authoritarian state doesn’t recognise the dignity of its citizens. That makes me dislike the system but, more importantly, it’s the weakness of the system because, at a certain point, the anger of people at being treated in this fashion will spill over.”

Nevertheless, he goes on, “in many ways, Asian government, not just China, but Singapore and in an earlier day, Japan and South Korea, had governments that looked more like a corporate board of governance because there’s no downward accountability whatever. You don’t have to deal with constituents ... You run the whole country like a corporation, and I think that’s one of their advantages at the moment.”

Turning to China, Fukuyama says: “One of the advantages of their form of authoritarianism is that they concluded after Mao that they would never again allow a single individual to exert that kind of domination over their system, and that’s why they have term limits. That’s why all of the decisions have to be taken collectively. But, in the end, that system is also going to have its inefficiencies.”

Yet it soon becomes clear that he does not think much of the US political system either. “Just look at the way that interest groups in the United States have a veto on the simplest kinds of reforms,” he says. “We allow mortgage interest deduction regardless of how expensive the house is. Why is that the case? Because we have a real estate industry that says, ‘Don’t even think about changing this.’ ”...His view seems to be that the world is caught between too little democracy in the east and too much in the west.

Is Western-style social democracy doomed to collapse under its own weight?Is there a happy medium between Eastern and Western approaches to political participation and social policy? And if so, how do we get there?

Personally I would like to think there are alternatives. Germany enacted a series of painful reforms to its social welfare system since the 1990s, so it is possible to roll back entitlements somewhat. But to some extent, reconfiguring national institutions requires a certain degree of national purpose and cooperation - certainly that has been true in parts of Asia (and even Ireland in the late 80s/early 90s). Unfortunately, it is very easy for that to slip into really ugly eruptions of nationalism.

At a minimum, I think taming the excesses of liberal democracy requires elected officials who take their roles and responsibility to the national interest seriously. However, the West seems to be short statesmen (and women) willing to take a 'long view' of development and growth - and the ones who do speak in the 'national interest' do so from a very narrow perspective (the National Front in France, for example).

What do others think? Can social democracy save itself? Or is the West doomed to demographic and economic collapse?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

beeftotheheels

Fantastic debate to start. I have been thinking about it a lot since I first read it. I think that it can survive in certain countries, I'm not so sure that it will survive throughout Europe.

In jurisdictions such as Ireland what we are seeing is a lot of angry posts on boards.ie, yet quite a mature acceptance of the status quo. The people have not taken to the streets, Fine Gael's popularity has actually gone up.

People like to maintain that there is a simple solution, yet I suspect deep down they don't actually believe that, hence they didn't vote for the "burn the bondholders" parties, they voted for the traditional opposition parties.

I think we will see changes in Ireland, I would like to hope that that involves a strengthening of our checks and balances, and a strengthening of our will when it comes to prosecuting wrongdoers, not to mention a clarification between what is naughty and what is just plain illegal which we have struggled with. But in our defense we are a relatively young country, and for too long civil war politics have overridden aspects of public life which really ought to be more important in this day and age. This has to, and I think has, changed.

In terms of Europe as a whole I think that the lesson will be a positive one, both in terms of better understanding the consequences of the EU, but also better understanding what we as people want and need from the European project.

Where I would have concerns, at this stage, would be in the southern States, most notably Greece (and possibly Spain and to a lesser extent Portugal), where the population would rather take to the streets than try and work through their problems, where public anger overrides reason or common purpose. I'm beginning to understand how those nations have struggled against autocracies, or perhaps this is a chicken and egg scenario - the people don't trust their governments because autocracies are memorable, but without that trust an autocracy might actually provide a better long term solution than a proletarian revolt.

Once the EU, or perhaps while the EU, struggles with the economic consequences of the eurozone crisis, they must bear in mind the original goal of a peaceful and democratic Europe.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm preparing myself now- Mandarin lessons!

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What policies specifically are you referring to here?

Valmont

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think taming the excesses of liberal democracy requires elected officials who take their roles and responsibility to the national interest seriously. However, the West seems to be short statesmen (and women) willing to take a 'long view' of development and growth...

The problem with this is that the system as we currently know it engenders exactly the opposite approach. The politicians are merely changeable scapegoats for large and powerful public sectors and big business shysters who have no incentive and indeed no contract to serve the national interest beyond lining their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. The colossal failure of western governments to manage vastly complex economies should have us scrambling for a decoupling of the state from any economic activity- there is no grand plan, no magic formula, no conscientious long-view politicians sitting on the wings. The state in its current western manifestation is rotten to the core and I believe it is folly to look towards such a demonstrably inept institution to fix our problems, when it is that exact institution which has led us here in the first place.

Valmont

southsiderosie wrote: »

What policies specifically are you referring to here?

Hugely underfunded entitlement programs, gigantic public sectors, absolute control of the supply of money and credit, the list goes on...

Nijmegen

The trouble is that in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

If they vote on the basis of increased entitlements, they will get them. We are spending ourselves silly with debts that we cannot repay, at levels that are not sustainable into the future.

The clear reality is that these debts will reduce the standard of living for future generations, who have to pare down their own spending to meet the demands of an ageing population, which has also left debts piled behind to boot.

What policies specifically are you referring to here?

Traditionally in poorer countries one has a bigger family, with a key reason being that the kids take care of the parents in old age. In a state that looks after its old people, the need for more kids is reduced.

It's one of the elements behind an 'advanced' society that is troublesome, and to counterbalance one needs to bring in a lot of foreign workers to be productive, pay taxes, and cover the shortfall.

If you want increasing living standards, you need more people. a 1:1 ratio of productive/unproductive people is not sustainable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Victor

But we don't need, not can we ultimately support ever expanding populations.

I'm not sure about income, but an expanding population merely divides the same amount of assets/resources over more people.

Cannibal Ox

Don't think that quote really does his position justice.

He agrees. “That’s actually a big problem in western public administration because I think good governance is a kind of aristocratic phenomenon. And, we don’t like deference to experts and we don’t like delegating authority to experts. Therefore, we ring them around with all of these rules, which limit their discretion, because we don’t trust them. The disease has gone furthest in the United States.” His view seems to be that the world is caught between too little democracy in the east and too much in the west.

On the one hand, he's saying that interest groups are challenging democratic norms, on the other he's saying that experts are being ignored. You don't need to look any further then the contest between climate scientists and oil companies in the US to see how this works, and how interest groups almost always win because they have the money, the resources and the connections to devour any expert, no matter how well qualified they are.

Which is Fukuyama's experience with the Bush administration turned into an academic argument. This is a man who acted as the neo-cons ideologue for years, supported Bush's wars, and once he realized that they weren't spreading liberal democracy, but trying to gain control of oil, abandoned the the entire project. He was the expert who was struggling against interest groups, and he lost.

This is a massive problem with democracy and it always has been. Machiavelli pointed it out almost five hundred years ago. When you have large, powerful groups who work in their own interests, as opposed to the interests of the democratic state, democracy itself is challenged. They siphon power off from the people and use it for their own ends.

In Ireland, the history of Fianna Fail with developers, bankers and builders is a pretty good example. In fact, arguably Fianna Fail itself was an interest group. How many times before the election did we hear Fianna Fail members say they were serving the interests of the Party first? How many times did people shout a their radio and say "You're supposed to serve us first?".

Politicians are supposed to represent and serve the people. The citizens vote them in to exercise power on their behalf. When one group of people can order politicians around to act in their interests, at the expense of the peoples, then you have a serious problem.

You can have a state that is bankrupt, filled with elderly pensioners, and with nothing in the shops, and people will cope and find a way out of it. That is what we've done throughout history. We cope, we adapt, we do better. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. But if you have a situation where the majority of people are disenfranchised, and power is held amongst small groups, then you start to see violence and oppression.

southsiderosie

Valmont wrote: »

The problem with this is that the system as we currently know it engenders exactly the opposite approach. The politicians are merely changeable scapegoats for large and powerful public sectors and big business shysters who have no incentive and indeed no contract to serve the national interest beyond lining their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. The colossal failure of western governments to manage vastly complex economies should have us scrambling for a decoupling of the state from any economic activity- there is no grand plan, no magic formula, no conscientious long-view politicians sitting on the wings. The state in its current western manifestation is rotten to the core and I believe it is folly to look towards such a demonstrably inept institution to fix our problems, when it is that exact institution which has led us here in the first place.

I think one of the key advantages of a lot of Asian governments is that they do have long-term plans, while in countries like the US, planning only goes as far as the next election cycle. I think that there are some local governments who take a "long view" of things (Chicago is actually quite a good example in this regard), but some things (tax policy, infrastructure) really do need to be managed at a regional or national level. I've spent a fair amount of time in Asia over the last year, and the difference in both energy and strategic vision between Hong Kong/Singapore/Malaysia and the US is startling. Again, a lot of US mayors seem to get this, even though elected officials in Washington don't.

That said, I think that there needs to be some balance here, because government's don't always pick winners, and infrastructure projects without community input can have an incredibly destructive impact on the economic and social fabric of cities (the urban renewal programs of the 1960s are a case in point).

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Don't think that quote really does his position justice.

Yes, sorry, I was trying to keep the OP relatively brief!

While I agree that there is a problem in the US with technical knowledge versus populist "from the gut" positions on policymaking, I am always a bit wary of government technocrats setting themselves up as the all-seeing, all-knowing arbiters of wisdom (i.e the French state). James Scott in his book Seeing Like the State (which has a lot of similarities to Hayek's writings on knowledge) points out that the push towards rationalization and centralization can quite easily tip into monstrously expensive and/or destructive state social and spatial engineering projects (from the construction of Brasilia to the Great Leap Forward). So I do think there needs to be space for local knowledge in policymaking, as they may be 'experts' in their own way when it comes to land use, etc.

Cannibal Ox

I don't think Francis Fukuyama asking people to pay more attention to specialists like himself is particularly surprising, or him almost endorsing an "aristocratic" elite element as productive for democracies. I don't think a technocracy is any more palatable then an aristocracy, but I can see his point about expert knowledge in the US being devalued by interest groups. Equally, I can see the reverse in Ireland, where economists have eked out a nice little niche for themselves that most closely resembles a position previously occupied by the clergy (albeit not with quite the same institutional backing) while entire sectors of the economy continue to stumble into an early grave.

It's a balancing act for sure, you don't want interest groups or intellectuals occupying positions that give them special privileges or powers that put them above the citizen. Equally, you don't want intellectuals output subsumed under common sense. But that's the role of politicians, they are the ones who are supposed to perform the balancing act that keeps the state functioning for the welfare of the citizens, not intellectuals or interest groups.

southsiderosie wrote:

I think one of the key advantages of a lot of Asian governments is that they do have long-term plans, while in countries like the US, planning only goes as far as the next election cycle.

Would you say any of that was down to their experience with the crisis in the 90s?

southsiderosie

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

It's a balancing act for sure, you don't want interest groups or intellectuals occupying positions that give them special privileges or powers that put them above the citizen. Equally, you don't want intellectuals output subsumed under common sense. But that's the role of politicians, they are the ones who are supposed to perform the balancing act that keeps the state functioning for the welfare of the citizens, not intellectuals or interest groups.

I agree; I think that in the US in particular, they have completely abdicated that role.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Would you say any of that was down to their experience with the crisis in the 90s?

No, because they were pretty strategic before the crisis as well. And at least in Hong Kong, they learn from past mistakes or disasters; for example, they changed banking and lending regulations significantly after earlier real estate market meltdowns, which is why they weren't hit nearly as hard by overbuilding and collapse this go round. I think it is easier to shift course in a small city-state like Hong Kong or Singapore though than in larger more unwieldy countries like China (or the US for that matter).

Icepick

No such a thing as too much democracy. Not enough education is the problem.
Churchill said it best: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

southsiderosie

Victor wrote: »

But we don't need, not can we ultimately support ever expanding populations.

I'm not sure about income, but an expanding population merely divides the same amount of assets/resources over more people.

I'm not sure that I buy the idea that immigration is the way out of this, but it isn't necessarily the case that having more people means that they will all end up fighting over smaller slices of the same pie. There is a chance that the pie will expand as well. It's getting that balance right that seems to be the catch!

Denerick

In western democracies we have many contradictions, with some group's enjoying disproportional power and influence due to their political relevance. These interest groups distort the free market and they mostly make little commercial sense - ie, the power of truckers in Greece, which ties up the distribution network, or the power of prison guard officers in California, which sustains an inhumane and inefficient correctional system. These special interests only enjoy the privileges they do because the State bends over backwards to keep these groups off their back, thus creating a system of insiders and outsiders.

The outsiders are you and me, people who aren't members of a particular organisation and lack the ability to lobby and pressurise the State into legislating for our very selfish and sectional interests.

There is a case to be made that a benignly technocratic regime (Makes sure the trains run on time, pays public sector wages etc.) which is by its nature completely free of the tendancy to please every special interest group that knocks on its door would run a healthier and more efficient State. But for all the sluggish growth and bizarre contradictions that the social democratic model throw up, it also insures a more cohesive society. It is our first instinct to lobby the political system every time something bad happens - dogs roaming the street? We want more dog enforcement officers. Increase in cyber bullying? More government regulation of the internet. Increase in anti social behaviour? More police. etc. etc. This is good because citizens automatically feel they have a say and influence in the matters that most concern them. This is also bad because they see the State as the ultimate arbiter of all their (Mostly petty) problems. Which creates a layer of bureaucracy and general 'mission creep' that soon gets out of control and leads to countless pieces of legislation and an ever more mystifying and confusing statute book.

I'm not a libertarian but I am quite tired of the nanny state.

sarkozy

I dislike Fukuyama. He usually says very trite, unimaginative stuff. He overstates the obvious. And he claimed Hegel's historical process was right but the Marxists were wrong, instead our 'end of history' is liberal capitalism.

He says this is the only option.

Wrong. And if someone says we have 'too much democracy', I suggest they don't know what they're talking about. If anything, we don't have enough. The typical form of democracy, the dominant form, can be termed 'competitive elitism'. Not true, participative democracy, rather a system whereby elites arrange to exchange power as a way to manage social conflict and concentrate power on the few. The rest of us have just enough freedom to keep us content. For the powerful, it means decisions can be made 'quickly' - but in whose interest?

But this is not republicanism democracy not to mention more direct forms. So it's disingenuous to say the least, and intellectually dishonest, to claim we have too much democracy. When you really look at it, we don't. Look at how disempowered we all feel in the face of utter crisis. Arguably, it's the abuse of power and fixing of certain systems and circuits of power until they become calcified that leads to the problems Fukuyama is talking about. Bureaucracy, concentration of power, corruption.

You see this in African countries. You see this in Latin American countries. And you see it in European countries. Mostly democratic in name, not in reality, but they're not real democracies, they's kleptocracies.

coldwood92

Too much scandal eg Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Amhran Nua

sarkozy wrote: »

But this is not republicanism democracy not to mention more direct forms. So it's disingenuous to say the least, and intellectually dishonest, to claim we have too much democracy. When you really look at it, we don't. Look at how disempowered we all feel in the face of utter crisis. Arguably, it's the abuse of power and fixing of certain systems and circuits of power until they become calcified that leads to the problems Fukuyama is talking about. Bureaucracy, concentration of power, corruption.

This is exactly right, the price of freedom, as it has been said, is eternal vigilance, which is a lesson that various electorates have yet to learn.

southsiderosie

coldwood92 wrote: »

Too much scandal eg Dominique Strauss-Kahn

What does that have to do with democracy?

nyarlothothep

No there isn't much democracy in the West, at least not America which is ruled by elite interests. Wall street is conjoined to Washington, the GOP and the democrats are different facets of the same financial interests which don't give a damn about the public, Obama's biggest electoral campaign funder was Goldman Sachs. Unless you have the support of elites and the finances to back it up in addition to being in line with the system forget about representing the common good. Then there is also the Patriot Act, bodyscanners and a whole history of attempting to drown out dissent as with the crisis of democracy phase in the 60s, used to describe the changes incurred by civil rights movements, the Mc Carthyist trials and more besides. In addition you have a history of CIA experimentation on citizens of the lower classes and a documented case of the spraying of chemical agents over San Francisco in the 80s. Does that sound like a democracy to you?

In addition the argument that China's social model is somehow better rings hollow with me as it just sounds like a case of the ends justifying the means. I consider this idea of the harmonious society which is maintained through brute supression to be hypocritical and a societal throwback. Just because it affords rational economic planning doesn't validate the executions, the beatings, the dissapearances and so on. I grant you that short term populist policies based around elections is just as bad. But you will have some people who will state that the world is chaotic and brutal and that means you need to do what it takes to survive whether as an individual or nation state. In fact I'm reminded of a quote from the Sunday Times about Christine Lagarde having the heart of an American lawyer, in other words she was a shark beneath the smiles, as if being viciously predatory and ruthless are somehow commendable qualities for leadership? But then some would perceive them to be though I will state that every action has a consequence so if people want to make the world more volatile all they have to do is place their trust in the same types of people who have led them throughout history.

I think the abolition of centralized authoritarian forms of social organization would allow for a better democratic system. In addition I think people would feel that politics would be more relevant to their lives to make informed decisions as they would have direct input, if they didn't like their representative he/she would get the chop but to institute such a system which could last would take a long time and a fundamental shift in the attitudes and perceptions of homo sapiens. With the hint of mass revolt the riot police and armed guard come out, the true face of the world we live in behind the political spin. But then I sometimes think people want to be ruled rather than to lead themselves so maybe there is too much democracy...

Denerick

Thats an interesting post, but to consider American democracy you need to look beyond the Federal level (Which is saturated with cash) and instead pursue the local level, where democracy truly does thrive to a quite startling degree. Any number of local officials are locally elected, schools are organised and run at a local level, and the people who make these decisions are local. Localism is the defining trait of American democracy. To say that the federal government typifies the political system is a little facile; yes it is over-ridden with special interests and lubricated by insane amounts of cash, but there are times when public opinion beats money hands down. For example Mitt Romney outspent John McCain significantly to get the Republican nomination but was eventually beaten by McCain, because the average Republican voter preferred him to Romney. Despite all his financial resources, his dodgey corporate bankrolling etc., the Republican party opted for the relative maverick with a history of voting against the Republican mainstream. For every example of anti democratic excess in the American political system you can mention, there is at least one example of American voters behaving at odds with corporate interests.

And BTW, Obama's election campaign was overwhelmingly funded by small contributions by individual citizens. He is generally disliked by the corporate community principally because he has been actively hostile to them since his ascent.

dizzywizlw

I was going to post an in depth argument but then I realised that you quoted Fukuyama.


End on History That is all.

nyarlothothep

Denerick wrote: »

Thats an interesting post, but to consider American democracy you need to look beyond the Federal level (Which is saturated with cash) and instead pursue the local level, where democracy truly does thrive to a quite startling degree. Any number of local officials are locally elected, schools are organised and run at a local level, and the people who make these decisions are local. Localism is the defining trait of American democracy. To say that the federal government typifies the political system is a little facile; yes it is over-ridden with special interests and lubricated by insane amounts of cash, but there are times when public opinion beats money hands down. For example Mitt Romney outspent John McCain significantly to get the Republican nomination but was eventually beaten by McCain, because the average Republican voter preferred him to Romney. Despite all his financial resources, his dodgey corporate bankrolling etc., the Republican party opted for the relative maverick with a history of voting against the Republican mainstream. For every example of anti democratic excess in the American political system you can mention, there is at least one example of American voters behaving at odds with corporate interests.

And BTW, Obama's election campaign was overwhelmingly funded by small contributions by individual citizens. He is generally disliked by the corporate community principally because he has been actively hostile to them since his ascent.

At the local level yes, and it is true that there are exceptions, nothing is certain but you can tip the odds in your favour considerable with a massive financial machine behind you. Large scale change and the shaping of public opinion can really be effective though at the national level. The amount of resistance among average Americans to a state healthcare system for example, why is this, the idea that in principle there is a safety net in the event that someone falls ill and can't afford health insurance? One explanation may be that the constant bombardment of advertising and corporate PR to look out for no.1 affects the individuals perception of the world where they have very little sympathy for other humans. The human mind is an amorphous thing, you can bring out certain traits and repress others in the right culture. This is why nowadays people tend to associate human nature with greed. Interestingly enough human nature always seems to be associated with bad things. Is that another product of culture, the 18th reverberation of nature being illogical, dark, unknown, the world of science and man as being rational, preferable and cast in the light?

In Ireland politicians will lobby quite effectively for local interests but it doesn't change the fact that overall its a banana republic. I guess there is some scope for change, an American president can pass ethically commendable acts or pursue beneficial policies but I think the system severly limits what a politician with good intentions can do, I guess in a similar way to how a CEO might engage in questionable activities to ensure the bottom line. The depth of civil society is very thin.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

And BTW, Obama's election campaign was overwhelmingly funded by small contributions by individual citizens. He is generally disliked by the corporate community principally because he has been actively hostile to them since his ascent.

Overwhelmingly? JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would think differently.

Barack Obama was bankrolled by the same list of corrupt bankers and corporate business interests as any other feckless shyster in Washington. 73% of Obama's funds came from the individuals comprising these institutions so you are technically correct but missing the bigger picture here- which is that Obama is not some hero for the little guy but just the same as any other politician whose interests do not actually match those of the country at large.

Victor

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm not sure that I buy the idea that immigration is the way out of this, but it isn't necessarily the case that having more people means that they will all end up fighting over smaller slices of the same pie. There is a chance that the pie will expand as well. It's getting that balance right that seems to be the catch!

While we are a looking distance from using up all housing land (worldwide), there are lots of places where there are problems with agricultural land, water, fuels, etc.

If everyone in the world reached the standards of living in the west, then lots of other resources would also be challenged.