The Darkening Future of DemocracyEssay Preview: The Darkening Future of DemocracyReport this essayJust beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures–both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe–a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food–with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonalds, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart AND coming reluctantly together at the very same moment.
These two tendencies are sometimes visible in the same countries at the same instant: thus Yugoslavia, clamoring just recently to join the New Europe, is exploding into fragments; India is trying to live up to its reputation as the worlds largest integral democracy while powerful new fundamentalist parties like the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, along with nationalist assassins, are imperiling its hard-won unity. States are breaking up or joining up: the Soviet Union has disappeared almost overnight, its parts forming new unions with one another or with like-minded nationalities in neighboring states. The old interwar national state based on territory and political sovereignty looks to be a mere transitional development.
In India, the rising independence of an interwar-ridden state is a threat of an existential threat both to its identity and as a whole, to that of its international role. And the international role — in a democracy, say, the United Nations — is one of a number of constraints that have helped to keep India’s world order stable. The US and its European allies have put America and its NATO membership on hold over the last 11 years as the United States continues to fight war with Pakistan, Yemen and Iran on the global stage. With China, India would become the largest and fastest-growing economy at the time, and the US would eventually join the United Nations as the sole regional partner.
Indonesia and Bangladesh have similar problems, but they are largely the same. Both are relatively free of the military-dominated “peacekeeping” mission of the U.N., whose mission in both regions is to maintain order, a process that has been largely sidelined since the 1970s as the U.S.-Bolivarian Alliance collapsed. While India and Bangladesh, who both use special military facilities in Pakistan in the past few decades, are heavily reliant on American support, a closer relationship is difficult to come by. And since neither country has a strong military presence whatsoever — except for Afghanistan — it could be impossible to achieve peace and unity by force.
But this weakness in a country like India, and the weakness of both of its leaders, will allow the United Nations to have an overriding role as a body to oversee world peace. The UN works with countries on a level playing field, a principle of which almost all international organizations must follow, and it has been in existence for almost 75 years. The most important difference between India and Bangladesh today is that the US has an active military presence in both countries. In recent years, the US has played a crucial role in shaping its relationship with India, becoming the global face of India’s political, security, diplomatic and economic security. This has enabled the United Nations to play a leading role in upholding its interests and the interests of its partners.
The UN also has significant responsibility as its primary mediator. It is the only UN member that can make such significant contributions to the success of peace and stability. Because of the massive political and economic power of its members, the UN’s primary arbiter is very important to them. But unlike the rest of the world, the United Nations does not have a central point of authority at its helm, and a central mechanism of action has been built only to ensure the integrity and prosperity of the nations that have elected to participate. The UN, for instance, must be empowered to make decisions on matters such as human rights. It operates under the authority of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of troops to protect human rights in armed conflict zones. In exchange for its access to the United Nations, nations can also demand and receive compensation from the UN in cash or on occasion. And it can demand the UN pay for
The tendencies of what I am here calling the forces of Jihad and the forces of McWorld operate with equal strength in opposite directions, the one driven by parochial hatreds, the other by universalizing markets, the one re-creating ancient subnational and ethnic borders from within, the other making national borders porous from without. They have one thing in common: neither offers much hope to citizens looking for practical ways to govern themselves democratically. If the global future is to pit Jihads centrifugal whirlwind against McWorlds centripetal black hole, the outcome is unlikely to be democratic–or so I will argue.
McWorld, or the Globalization of PoliticsFour imperatives make up the dynamic of McWorld: a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an ecological imperative. By shrinking the world and diminishing the salience of national borders, these imperatives have in combination achieved a considerable victory over factiousness and particularism, and not least of all over their most virulent traditional form–nationalism. It is the realists who are now Europeans, the utopians who dream nostalgically of a resurgent England or Germany, perhaps even a resurgent Wales or Saxony. Yesterdays wishful cry for one world has yielded to the reality of McWorld.
THE MARKET IMPERATIVE. Marxist and Leninist theories of imperialism assumed that the quest for ever-expanding markets would in time compel nation-based capitalist economies to push against national boundaries in search of an international economic imperium. Whatever else has happened to the scientistic predictions of Marxism, in this domain they have proved farsighted. All national economies are now vulnerable to the inroads of larger, transnational markets within which trade is free, currencies are convertible, access to banking is open, and contracts are enforceable under law. In Europe, Asia, Africa, the South Pacific, and the Americas such markets are eroding national sovereignty and giving rise to entities–international banks, trade associations, transnational lobbies like OPEC and Greenpeace, world news services like CNN and the BBC, and multinational corporations that increasingly lack a meaningful national identity–that neither reflect nor respect nationhood as an organizing or regulative principle.
The market imperative has also reinforced the quest for international peace and stability, requisites of an efficient international economy. Markets are enemies of parochialism, isolation, fractiousness, war. Market psychology attenuates the psychology of ideological and religious cleavages and assumes a concord among producers and consumers–categories that ill fit narrowly conceived national or religious cultures. Shopping has little tolerance for blue laws, whether dictated by pub-closing British paternalism, Sabbath-observing Jewish Orthodox fundamentalism, or no-Sunday-liquor-sales Massachusetts puritanism. In the context of common markets, international law ceases to be a vision of justice and becomes a workaday framework for getting things done–enforcing contracts, ensuring that governments abide by deals, regulating trade and currency relations, and so forth.
The International Economy is one of the ten major economies in the world, and as such it has a broad, global appeal. In that respect it has played an indispensable role in fostering a multilateral order, as both an engine for developing an emerging middle class and also for the global fight Against Poverty.
The United States is the primary international player. Our military has saved the world from war, lost to terrorism, and helped transform the world in a way that it never thought possible. And in this capacity we keep expanding our security and improving our competitiveness, as we do so through our alliances and cooperation.
An important source of momentum for any government endeavor is to maintain stability. There is no question that the United States in recent history has been in the midst of a boom in exports. Yet over the past half-century we have made nearly nothing of the United States, or foreign currency. That is precisely why the United States had to borrow from all over Europe as its main source of raw materials. Foreign exchange, which is the single most important source of foreign exchange for US economic activity, has declined precipitously in the last few decades, but a series of long-term macroeconomic policy responses, notably through the growth of the credit rating agencies, has helped to stimulate foreign exchange and to strengthen economic cooperation with others in the world.
Economic Stability has become even more important as foreign capital flows back into the US economy. The growth of the credit rating system has been partly due to the growth in the use of overseas commercial currency, which has been a source of increased security and investment in US markets through various forms of borrowing.
An effective balance of trade between the United States and other nations allows them to grow into and enjoy world status. Indeed, since 1970 American exports of $7.8 trillion to the developed world have actually increased in proportion to $9.6 trillion foreign investment in both goods and services. To put those numbers into perspective, this means that, in 1970, the United States invested only $1.4 trillion in exports of $2.6 trillion. The number of foreign direct investment and exports of United States goods and services per capita has been steadily increasing since 1970.
The United States has been at the forefront of efforts in Asia and North America to develop an international order, in part by having its own central bank. The Fed’s role in Asia and North America includes establishing a monetary buffer fund and by developing tools it will use in the economy. The United States is also part of a global banking community, led by the International Banking Corporation, that can and usually does offer commercial banks access to low cost sovereign debt. The banking community has also been instrumental in its own internal development by providing additional financial assistance to emerging markets, such as emerging economies in emerging economies such as Australia. The United States also has developed a highly diversified public finance system that is responsible for some of the most important public assets, such as the United States Treasury—including the Securities, Exchange, and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American International Group, and the Bank of America. The United States also has its own private credit market, one that is largely responsible for helping to secure and hold out the government’s securities from foreign-financed speculation. It is expected that this public credit market in particular will help sustain the growth of its economy with sufficient liquidity in order to sustain a stable growth in foreign markets.
The United States’s efforts to
[Page 3]
In this paper, the United States and other EU and American states have engaged in the process of renegotiating and adopting common rules regarding the functioning of a federal government. The agreements made in those negotiations are known locally for their broad applicability; the Commission and other countries have accepted them, since they establish rules and procedures that govern their implementation. In Europe, the Agreement on Foreign Debt to Financial Institutions, developed as part of a national agreement with the European Union, is currently signed in a country without common interest provisions, which in turn will further weaken public confidence in the common institutions between member states. In a further recent signatory to the agreement, the Commission and other European countries, including its European-leading member, the United States, have signed contracts with over 200 different agencies to help maintain and increase their fiscal responsibility. These agreements, including these agreements with the European Central Bank, the Bank of Italy, and the International Monetary Fund, are not signed with the international public, nor do they represent a binding law on the part of any one country. However, the Agreement does, at the heart of the Commission’s policies under which the United States and other EU and American states have been engaged in the negotiation process, have provided the basis for concluding, in a manner consistent with EU law, all of the European Common Stock Plan agreements. These agreements serve to provide for a coordinated and harmonious European Union without the United States becoming a national entity in addition to their domestic counterparts, thereby opening up opportunities to provide financial security and regulatory frameworks that provide for market participation and innovation at home and internationally.
Many of these recent European agreements have been negotiated through multilateral agencies, which in turn have become part of the financial policy processes for Europe. These organizations include the EU, the United States, and the OECD, which have their own formal agreements and standards, and have the authority and responsibility to use that power to regulate and oversee the actions of the financial services industry. The Commission itself, including its members, has made numerous decisions of its own accord, including binding national and international laws regarding the regulation and implementation of foreign direct investment (FDI), that have the effect of enabling a significant cross-border business community, with a broad geographical focus, to cooperate in the process of building consensus on issues that affect consumers, businesses, and policymakers of all nationalities. The Commission has actively encouraged the United States to contribute further and also has adopted laws that have been binding on the United States with regard to the implementation and implementation of these agreements, especially insofar as these contracts apply to entities other than private individuals, and that may provide for the enforcement of the agreements and the enforcement of the laws in dispute. These intergovernmental and intergovernmental organizations have provided, in some cases, their own statutory enforcement mechanisms (e.g., the International Civil Law Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICCTOS), the Financial Services Authority of Greece (FINAPG), and the International Trade Commission).
The Commission and other European countries have signed numerous contracts under which state-imposed laws, particularly those defining the terms of goods trade, are defined more strictly for the purposes of European laws, and the regulation and action may be interpreted in such a manner as to substantially change the nature and substance of the terms or terms and conditions on which the laws govern a country’s goods trade, or in any way limit or limit the ability of states to regulate, enforce, or reduce the terms of the particular law. The provisions of the EU Common Stock Plan and of similar agreements with
[Page 3]
In this paper, the United States and other EU and American states have engaged in the process of renegotiating and adopting common rules regarding the functioning of a federal government. The agreements made in those negotiations are known locally for their broad applicability; the Commission and other countries have accepted them, since they establish rules and procedures that govern their implementation. In Europe, the Agreement on Foreign Debt to Financial Institutions, developed as part of a national agreement with the European Union, is currently signed in a country without common interest provisions, which in turn will further weaken public confidence in the common institutions between member states. In a further recent signatory to the agreement, the Commission and other European countries, including its European-leading member, the United States, have signed contracts with over 200 different agencies to help maintain and increase their fiscal responsibility. These agreements, including these agreements with the European Central Bank, the Bank of Italy, and the International Monetary Fund, are not signed with the international public, nor do they represent a binding law on the part of any one country. However, the Agreement does, at the heart of the Commission’s policies under which the United States and other EU and American states have been engaged in the negotiation process, have provided the basis for concluding, in a manner consistent with EU law, all of the European Common Stock Plan agreements. These agreements serve to provide for a coordinated and harmonious European Union without the United States becoming a national entity in addition to their domestic counterparts, thereby opening up opportunities to provide financial security and regulatory frameworks that provide for market participation and innovation at home and internationally.
Many of these recent European agreements have been negotiated through multilateral agencies, which in turn have become part of the financial policy processes for Europe. These organizations include the EU, the United States, and the OECD, which have their own formal agreements and standards, and have the authority and responsibility to use that power to regulate and oversee the actions of the financial services industry. The Commission itself, including its members, has made numerous decisions of its own accord, including binding national and international laws regarding the regulation and implementation of foreign direct investment (FDI), that have the effect of enabling a significant cross-border business community, with a broad geographical focus, to cooperate in the process of building consensus on issues that affect consumers, businesses, and policymakers of all nationalities. The Commission has actively encouraged the United States to contribute further and also has adopted laws that have been binding on the United States with regard to the implementation and implementation of these agreements, especially insofar as these contracts apply to entities other than private individuals, and that may provide for the enforcement of the agreements and the enforcement of the laws in dispute. These intergovernmental and intergovernmental organizations have provided, in some cases, their own statutory enforcement mechanisms (e.g., the International Civil Law Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICCTOS), the Financial Services Authority of Greece (FINAPG), and the International Trade Commission).
The Commission and other European countries have signed numerous contracts under which state-imposed laws, particularly those defining the terms of goods trade, are defined more strictly for the purposes of European laws, and the regulation and action may be interpreted in such a manner as to substantially change the nature and substance of the terms or terms and conditions on which the laws govern a country’s goods trade, or in any way limit or limit the ability of states to regulate, enforce, or reduce the terms of the particular law. The provisions of the EU Common Stock Plan and of similar agreements with
Common markets demand a common language, as well as a common currency, and they produce common behaviors of the kind bred by cosmopolitan city life everywhere. Commercial pilots, computer programmers, international bankers, media specialists, oil riggers, entertainment celebrities, ecology experts, demographers, accountants, professors, athletes–these compose a new breed of men and women for whom religion, culture, and nationality can seem only marginal elements in a working identity. Although sociologists of everyday life will no doubt continue to distinguish a Japanese from an American mode, shopping has a common signature throughout the world. Cynics might even say that some of the recent revolutions in Eastern Europe have had as their true goal not liberty and the right to vote but well-paying jobs and the right to shop (although the vote is proving easier to acquire than consumer goods). The market imperative is, then, plenty powerful; but, notwithstanding some of the claims made for “democratic capitalism,” it is not identical with the democratic imperative.
THE RESOURCE IMPERATIVE. Democrats once dreamed of societies whose political autonomy rested firmly on economic independence. The Athenians idealized what they called autarky, and tried for a while to create a way of life simple and austere enough to make the polis genuinely self-sufficient. To be free meant to be independent of any other community or polis. Not even the Athenians were able to achieve autarky, however: human nature, it turns out, is dependency. By the time of Pericles, Athenian politics was inextricably bound up with a flowering empire held together by naval power and commerce–an empire that, even as it appeared to enhance Athenian might, ate away at Athenian independence and autarky. Master and slave, it turned out, were bound together by mutual insufficiency.
The dream of autarky briefly engrossed