TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » The Principle of the Thing

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 20-11-11, 11:46 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default It's not just our leaders who are in a crisis. Democracy itself is failing

It's not just our leaders who are in a crisis. Democracy itself is failing

The world's statesmen no longer shape events but merely respond to them, in thrall to market forces


Peter Beaumont
The Observer, Sunday 20 November 2011

Are the following intimations of a global crisis in the legitimacy of western democracy? Ireland's confidential budget plan, unseen by the Irish electorate, is leaked by European finance officials to the German parliament where the proposals are examined by the German finance committee.

In Italy, Mario Monti, the country's unelected new prime minister and a former international adviser to Goldman Sachs, stands in the Giustiniani Palace as head of a cabinet of similarly unelected technocrats. Imposed in place of the corrupt, useless and seedy Silvio Berlusconi to satisfy the "markets", Monti promises what we are told the markets want, and that is "sacrifices".

In Greece, both left and right of the country unite against their own technocrat, the former head of Greece's Central Bank, Lucas Papademos, brought in, too, at the behest of the markets. And in Berlin on Friday, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party, which could not manage to secure a mandate to govern the UK on its own, sits down with a German chancellor, Angela Merkel, whose countrymen do not trust her to handle the eurozone crisis.

If the picture of our leaders in the midst of a worldwide crisis is not a terribly inspiring one – politicians with clay feet or in hock to business interest, unelected bureaucrats and politicians lacking support – it is because western democracy itself, by and large, is not looking very pretty either. All of which leads to a question, one that has more commonly been posed by those on the farther reaches of the left, but is now infiltrating the mainstream debate: has the intimate partnership between democracy and neoliberalism, the prominent dogma of our age and one which has shaped most of our politicians, has been toxic to democracy itself?

First, however, an issue of terminology needs to be nailed down and that is what we mean by "democracy" – more specifically "free-market democracy" – a notion, that as the world's economic meltdown has gathered pace, has appeared ever more oxymoronic in Italy, Greece and now Ireland. The dispiriting reality is that the west, even as it has preached the virtues of western democracy to other countries, has been moved inexorably towards an ever more procedural and debased version of democracy.

Concerned more with mechanics of electoral choices offered from a narrow menu of options, with most of its drama concocted by the media, democracy under the aegis of the markets has become, as both political theorists and those protesting on the streets have attested, ever more distant from notions such as social justice and equality, with less participation, not more.

Over recent decades, the mania for deregulation, particularly of the financial markets, has diminished scope for action in the sphere of international politics and economics, transforming politicians from leaders to a species of tornado-chasers who have, since 2008, dashed from crisis to crisis.

And where politicians once stood offering their visions, albeit not ones that all could agree with, even the business of politics itself has become victim to the forces of the market either through focus groups or, as seen more recently in the UK, through stunts such as e-petitions which are already threatening to turn policy-making into a kind of cheap and transitory transaction.

We should not, perhaps, be that surprised that the current economic crisis has accelerated already emerging problems in our democracy. As early as 2008, when the economic crisis began, the Economist Intelligence Unit voiced its concern that "the recent halt in democratisation" could turn into a retreat. Three years on, the concern is not over how fast democracy is spreading, but what the crisis has done to established democracies.

There were others raising the alarm closer to home. Barely noticed at the time, a prescient warning was delivered to the Council of Europe by the rapporteur for its political affairs committee in 2009 which warned in explicit terms of the dangers democracy was facing in the midst of the crisis, not least through "highly centralised executive decision-making and global negotiation mechanisms with little parliamentary control, insufficient transparency and without opportunities for citizens' participation". The report also warned of a growing lack of interest "in the current institutionalised procedures of democracy and a crisis in representation", noting election turnouts "in free fall" in most European countries.



The centre of the crisis for democratic legitimacy has been the point at which all of these trends have collided. The west's political parties, dangerously in thrall to the arguments of a privileged and interested financial class, long ago lost the ability and desire to criticise the self-serving nostrums delivered by the City, even as they have demonstrated a shocking complacency at the destructive risk neoliberalism has entailed. Although that has changed somewhat in the last year, with politicians on both left and right recognising the necessity for a more values-driven politics and economics, these calls come after the damage has been done.

If damage has been visible in the developing world for some time, what has shocked many Europeans in the recent crisis is how the worst effects of neoliberal policies have been repatriated to Athens and Rome with the same demands .

What's more, national governments, even supra-national political groupings, have struggled when confronted by the destructive failure of truly global mechanisms such as the world's banking system and the bond markets. It has not only been government but democracy itself that has struggled with the markets – but for a different reason. Democracy is a conversational process that moves at a human speed. The deregulated interlocking financial systems we have created, however, instantly arbitrate political decisions from sidelines like spectators at the Coliseum with a thumbs up or a thumbs down that is visible in market movements and bond rates.

But if our politics is failing, it is not enough to blame a small elite, whether from the world of politics or finance. The crisis is located at a far deeper level, in our own acceptance of a series of implausible economic propositions even as populations in the west disengaged from political involvement. Housing bubbles, both in Europe and the US, have been looked upon as cashpoint machines, regardless of the corrosive social cost. Share ownership, including through pension funds, has created a rentier mindset, reflected in the character of the politicians we have too often elected, men and women who see politics as part of a boutique career, not as a passionate calling.

We abrogated our engagement in the democratic process to politicians who abrogated influence to an unaccountable system as part of a pact that saw us happy as long as we were relatively comfortable. With that arrangement breaking down, we discover we have given up more than we bargained for.

It's not just our leaders who are in a crisis. Democracy itself is failing | Peter Beaumont | Comment is free | The Observer
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 20-11-11, 12:53 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

This really is desperately boring. And old. It comes up again and again in the civil service exams here, and you just want to open your wrists rather than spending four hours pretending to give a shit. It's a sort of combination of the Gallic itch to philosophise about everything, and the fact that no one ever got a social sciences study grant for saying that everything's peachy.

Basically, democracy's been in crisis since at least the 80s, and will go on being in crisis long after the economy has recovered. It's just what democracy does.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 21-11-11, 10:01 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Well certainly, the 80's marked the shift to market domination and the receding of the significance of politics. So what? See frogs in hot water, that isn;t an argument against the problem being real.

Fact is, our "democracy" just doesn't matter, what we vote for doesn't matter, an functionally the system we live under is oligarchic and plutocratic.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 21-11-11, 10:22 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Quote:
Well certainly, the 80's marked the shift to market domination and the receding of the significance of politics.
Well I'd put it more down to the fact that the failure of communism as a viable alternative was finally confirmed. Basically, liberal democracy scored too crushing a victory, and now no one can think of any alternatives to centre-ground, soft paternalism. Look at those poor OWS fuckers. "What do we want?" "Something nice and lovely with community and no nasty bankers!" Yeah, well. Good luck with that.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 21-11-11, 10:48 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
Well I'd put it more down to the fact that the failure of communism as a viable alternative was finally confirmed.
lol

Quote:
Basically, liberal democracy scored too crushing a victory, and now no one can think of any alternatives to centre-ground, soft paternalism.
Well then by your own argument, once relieved of the necessity to look good, the true colours of "liberal democracy" have shown through, being neither liberal nor democratic. Now we see it in all its oligarchic glory, backed up by the legal and military power of the state.

Hardly a resounding endorsement, is it?

Quote:
Look at those poor OWS fuckers. "What do we want?" "Something nice and lovely with community and no nasty bankers!" Yeah, well. Good luck with that.
Sheer nonsense, once again. It must take an extreme effort to remain this oblivious in the face of reality. Seeing as we do not in fact have any kind of functioning democracy, their first demand is, and must be, for a politics that is subordinate to and in the service of the popular will - not to make specific demands of the prevailing oligarchy. That should be totally fucking obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 21-11-11, 11:02 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Quote:
Well then by your own argument, once relieved of the necessity to look good, the true colours of "liberal democracy" have shown through, being neither liberal nor democratic. Now we see it in all its oligarchic glory, backed up by the legal and military power of the state.

Hardly a resounding endorsement, is it?
It's still better than the alternative. But yeah, odd isn't it? The threat of communism always seemed like a reason for our leaders to demand less democracy, but actually things were pretty good BITD. As long as you weren't gay or ethnic or a pornographer or a woman or someone trying to elect a socialist government in a third world country. You have to admit that the Gini curve for white males was way flatter, and I guess the housewives and the cottagers had their own comforts.

Anyway, yeah. If we could combine modern equality with a proper opposition, that would be a good thing, but the only serious one we've got is hardcore Islam, which lacks the mass appeal of communism.

Quote:
Sheer nonsense, once again. It must take an extreme effort to remain this oblivious in the face of reality. Seeing as we do not in fact have any kind of functioning democracy, their first demand is, and must be, for a politics that is subordinate to and in the service of the popular will - not to make specific demands of the prevailing oligarchy. That should be totally fucking obvious.
I dare say. It would certainly be better than their current first demand of "Er... Dunno really... Can I get back to you on that?"
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Last edited by Gilles de Rais; 21-11-11 at 11:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 21-11-11, 11:11 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
It's still better than the alternative.
It most certainly is not.

Quote:
But yeah, odd isn't it?
No, it was entirely predictable. And in fact I said that years ago: that the capitalist gloves had come off and the usual exploitation resumed.

Quote:
Anyway, yeah. If we could combine modern equality with a proper opposition, that would be a good thing, but the only serious one we've got is hardcore Islam, which lacks the mass appeal of communism.
We've got a proper opposition right now, in OWS. 900+ cites have occupations now. Like it or not, this is the most important thing to happen to politics since 1968.

Plus, they are reinventing a goodly chunk of communist praxis. Here they are, the revolutionary proletariat that Marx described. And internationalised too: 900+ occupations in cities around the world.

Even if OWS is defeated, even if the ancien regime wins, this time around, the central problem won't go away, and it will all happen again.

Quote:
I dare say. It would certainly be better than their current first demand of "Er... Dunno really... Can I get back to you on that?"
Rubbish. The demand for proper, accountable democracy in the interests of the majority has been central from day 1. That's the whole point of the 99% slogan.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 21-11-11, 11:22 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Quote:
It most certainly is not.
You have your opinion, I have mine.

Quote:
No, it was entirely predictable. And in fact I said that years ago: that the capitalist gloves had come off and the usual exploitation resumed.
Something about a stopped clock...?

Fortunately political debate isn't like GCSE maths. If your working out's wrong you still get top marks.

Quote:
We've got a proper opposition right now, in OWS. 900+ cites have occupations now. Like it or not, this is the most important thing to happen to politics since 1968.
And that was a roaring success. 1968 failed because the participants couldn't agree on any concrete proposals. I dare say there's a lesson in there somewhere.

Quote:
Rubbish. The demand for proper, accountable democracy in the interests of the majority has been central from day 1. That's the whole point of the 99% slogan.
And, as I have pointed out a million times, it's too vague.

Who'll take out the bins in your proper, accountable democracy?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 21-11-11, 11:56 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
Something about a stopped clock...?
Something about history repeating itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce?

Quote:
Fortunately political debate isn't like GCSE maths. If your working out's wrong you still get top marks.
But in this case the working out was quite correct.

Quote:
And that was a roaring success. 1968 failed because the participants couldn't agree on any concrete proposals. I dare say there's a lesson in there somewhere.
Sheer nonsense. The Grenelle agreements won a 35% increased in the miminum wage and 10% wage increase generally. Problem was, at his point it wasn't good enough for the popular base to accept them. It is not true to claim that there were no specific demands, but it is foolish to think that nay such movement can be reduced to them.

There are both differences and similarities here with May '68. But the ide thast specific demands are demonstrative of clarity and more likely to succeed is simply Not True.

Quote:
And, as I have pointed out a million times, it's too vague.

Who'll take out the bins in your proper, accountable democracy?
It's not at all vague. You can't be any more precise about the status quo: you could only answer the question with "the people who take those jobs". Oh yeah? Who are they then? Why would they do that?

Onjce again, this argument is simplistic and hypocritical.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 4
contracycle, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0