Tuesday, 6 November 2018

The Democratic Eclipse

It has been an established norm over the past two centuries that the best way for a nation to organise its affairs is through democratic means. Democratic politics combined with liberal economics have been seen as the vehicle by which rising prosperity can be guaranteed. They form the basis of the 'Washington Consensus' which currently dominates our worldview and infuses our institutions.

In recent years, however, the Washington Consensus has been called into question. Liberal economics is seen to have delivered apparently ever growing levels of inequality and is held to be failing in it's core premise - ever rising prosperity for all. Many see the liberal economy as rigged in favour of self-perpetuating elites in a 'winner takes all' contest in which some people do very well, whilst the majority are simply left behind. Those left behind are increasingly angry and prepared to express that anger in terms that support increasingly illiberal politicians.

Whether an illiberal economy causes illiberal politics is an interesting question. We can note that the two have been associated over the course of the Twentieth Century, so there could well be some form of causal loop. However, the erosion of faith in democracy as a means to order our affairs has been evident in a number of long term trends.

The first is that we are living in an age of wicked problems. These are problems that are quite complicated, volatile, and non-linear in their manifestation. Climate change is one such case in hand. The climate science behind our fears for a changing climate is extremely complex, and very uncertain, given it's non-linear nature. We are accustomed to viewing the problems we face with a mindset that takes the view that every problem has a solution. In the case of climate change, that may not be so.

It is an essential tenet of democratic decision making that the electorate understands the issues on which they are voting. Climate change is such a complex issue that few can master the maths needed to understand the issue. In this case, we have resorted to relying upon the evidence of expert analysis, but the experts involved have proven to be partial, thus undermining public confidence in technocratic evidence. Trust in expert evidence has been severely damaged, so we are left to rely upon decisions made in ignorance.

The alternative is to give up the pretence of a democratic decision structure in favour of a technocratic one. One such institution relying upon this approach is the European Union, which is dominated by technocrats in Brussels. It has the thinnest of veneers of democratic legitimacy, which could well be an existential crisis in the making.

Another authority that has a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy is the People's Republic of China. This presents a serious challenge to the Washington Consensus. Just as liberal democracies appear to be failing to deliver ever rising prosperity, the 'Beijing Consensus' appears to be doing the opposite. The emerging Beijing Consensus mixes authoritarian politics with a state directed economy. This is enhanced further by recent developments in technology that are facilitating the surveillance state.

This authoritarianism has underpinned the emergence of the Chinese economy as a world titan and cannot be dismissed as an aberration. The simple appeal of the model has started to gain a foothold in western style democracies. The electorate in those countries, especially those which have suffered from years of austerity, have been prepared to resort to a 'strongman' style of government in the hope that their ills may be cured. This is unlikely to be the case, but that belief is not widespread at the moment.

Part of the problem lies in the third broad trend now manifesting itself - the rise of greed as the basis of self interest. An important tenet of representative democracy is that, once elected, the governing class rules for the good of the whole nation. That is not overly apparent at the moment. Government is now seen as a means to reward those factions that propelled you into office, and provides an opportunity for self-enrichment and self-aggrandisement. Contemporary office seems far away from the public interest as a motive. Few would argue that politicians act for the public good because we have become inured to the self-seeking politician. That undermines public faith in democratic institutions as a means to organise our collective affairs. 

As these trends come together, they tend to reinforce themselves. Self seeking politicians undermine faith in democratic institutions. This results in a paralysis in government, which fails to deliver on the basic prosperity that underpins the system. That means competing institutions start to look more favourable, and so the cycle continues.

There is nothing to suggest that this cycle will come to an end any time soon. Austerity gnaws away at fabric of democratic institutions, and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Politics is beholden to the ideology of small government and low taxes, and has been for decades. Public service is seen as self seeking behaviour, even if it isn't, which helps to perpetuate a disgruntled tax base. As the economy continues to under-perform, more extreme alternatives take in a tinge of respectability.

Some have recognised this democratic eclipse, but few are prepared to do anything about it.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan
© The European Futures Observatory 2018