A New Normative Synthesis instead of Uniformity

Rein Müllerson   2012/2/27 source：

In the process of tens of thousands of years long journey from an African village to all over the world, humankind became more and more heterogeneous; it dissimilated. However, a long and painful process of assimilation and homogenization set in. Partly, it is a natural process; interacting societies borrow from each other that which works best. Not only technological, and first of all military, novelties but also various social and political arrangements cross frontiers. In addition to such a natural assimilation of societies through competition and borrowing from each other, there have been purposeful efforts to make the world more homogeneous. Monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam, through missionary activities and conquests, have tried to make the world uniform in terms of faith. Later two heirs of the Enlightenment - Marxism and liberal-democracy - took over the task of drawing up blueprints for the 'end of history'. Today it is Washington, still feeling victorious over its Cold War nemesis yet ignorant of looming crises, which is trying to create a uniform liberal democratic world. However, this effort is as utopian as were the attempts of the Soviet communists to build a communist paradise on Earth, or the idea of recreating a Islamic Caliphate.

 

It is true that not only does gun-powder, the printing press or the Internet cross frontiers; so do the ideas of freedoms, equality between men and women and democracy. However, even for the acceptance of technological innovations certain preconditions (e.g., certain level of education) are needed; much more is indispensable for the reception of foreign political and social novelties. Current efforts to instigate regime changes in Asia, Northern Africa and the Middle East, notwithstanding that peoples' revolts have serious domestic causes, are attempts to export Western style political and economic systems to societies where they are alien. That is why such exports often end up in chaos and anarchy instead of democracy, and in place of markets based on the rule of law souks controlled by central and local strongmen emerge. Moreover, today, when Western style liberal democracy and capitalism are in deep crisis (short-termism in decision-making, the rule of money instead of people, special interests as a substitute for common interest etc), attempts to export Western values seems rather hubristic, to put it mildly. One of the most important lessons of the 'Arab spring' should be that external interference usually makes things worse, not better. The rule of the thumb should be: don't prop up dictators but don't undermine them either. Often anti-Western attitudes are counter-reactions to Western policies aimed at supporting pro-Western governments in power. Equally, one may be certain that the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan will not remember Western forces as liberators. In Afghanistan, soon more NATO troops will be killed by those whom they train, not by the Taliban, or rather, the difference between the two is becoming blurred.

 

Today there are three economic models and corresponding political arrangements that all have their shortcomings made manifest by globalization: Anglo-Saxon libertarianism, Scandinavian style social democracy and state capitalism à la China or Russia; many more are somewhere in between. The future of the world may well be some kind of synthesis of the viable characteristics of these models. The clear and present danger is an unfettered global market. It is becoming a ‘big brother’ whose interference with individual liberties, though more anonymous and less direct than that of the State, is equally nefarious. One of the most important tasks of States is the management of global issues such as a globalized economy, the prevention of environmental degradation, the maintenance of national and international security, and the qualified, contingent and contextual promotion of democracy and human rights. It is sometimes said that States are too big for small things and too small for big things. However, if there are entities ready to take over smaller things, there is nothing yet available to resolve big issues. The rise of China and other Asian countries, where the role of the State has been instrumental in guaranteeing this ascent, is a further evidence that it is too early to send the State into the dustbin of history, as Marxists dreamed of, or cut it down to the size of a mere 'night watchman' as libertarians and neo-liberals would like. Russian analyst Sergei Karaganov may be right in writing that 'The existing model of Western capitalism based on a society of almost universal affluence and advanced democracy cannot withstand new competition. Not only will the authoritarian regimes have to drift towards greater democracy in the medium term. Western democracies, too, will have to drift towards more authoritarianism. This will be a retreat, a post-modern theory of convergence'. Cum grano salis, there seems to be some truth to such a statement. However, if the Eastern drift towards greater liberty and democracy is well within the overall long-term tendency of the evolution of humankind and is already taking place, a widespread and sustainable drift towards more authoritarianism goes against the general long-term transformations that have taken place in the world.

 

Therefore, the term 'more authoritarianism' may not reflect accurately what the West needs in order to compete with the rising East. Rather, one may consider more collectivism instead of glorifying rampant individualism à la Ayn Rand; rights balanced with responsibilities; a greater role for the State not so much as a redistributor of wealth as the protector of people from the negative effects of markets; and acceptance of the truth that that there is no single true socioeconomic and political arrangement suitable for all for all times. Even such a free-market enthusiast as Niall Fergusson has recently published an article entitled 'We're All State Capitalists Now' writing that '... the question today is not whether the state or the market should be in charge. The real question is which countries' laws and institutions are best, not only at achieving rapid economic growth but also, equally importantly, at distributing the fruits of growth in a way that citizens deem to be just'. Yes, the global village in which we are increasingly living has a tendency of slowly and painfully becoming more homogeneous whilst never becoming the same. Attempts to artificially quicken this process would end in disaster. Moreover, claiming that one knows who is on the right side of history is like playing God. All grand social designs are utopian but some of them contain great insights. The art of politics is to recognize those of them that work in concrete time and space; in the real world the colour of the cat matters far less than its ability to catch mice.