The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
Is it true that there are more nations with more political instability now than at any time since the end of World War II, or does it only seem like it, or “feel” like it? Or does it merely appear that way to an elderly parson who likes to philosophize about more issues than may be prudent for him to address, and who may simply have lost both his objectivity and his ability to sort out the wheat from the chaff?
Twenty years ago there definitely were more relatively effective democracies functioning in the world than there are today. Americans naturally tend to focus on America more than on other nation-states. However, that is probably also true for most citizens in most other nations; they also focus on their own countries more than on others.
Currently, because the forebears of a majority of Americans came from one or more European nations, we tend to concentrate our international interest on European politics when we are not closely observing our own political machinations. There are several European states that are much less stable now than they were just a few years ago. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine all seem less demonstrably democratic now compared to previous years. I included none of the Balkan countries because they are all so relatively young as democracies, and their dissatisfaction with their governments may simply reflect political unfamiliarity with a new reality.
Because of the great uncertainty over the ultimate BREXIT decision, the solidarity of British democracy today is perhaps the most threatened in all of Europe. Furthermore, it is astonishing that the Conservative Party has thrust Boris Johnson upon the beleaguered Brits as their new Prime Minister. It would appear that almost anyone could more effectively calm the waters of the turbulent North and Irish Seas than Boris.
This essay was prompted by a news story in The Economist (Aug. 3, 2019) called “Coalitions of chaos.” Most European states have parliamentary forms of government, where elections are determined by parliamentary political parties and not by constitutionally decreed electoral terms. The article stated that more than a quarter of the current parliaments in Europe were elected in polls that were called early.
There were various factors in each country where elections were called early. The huge wave of immigrants flooding into southeastern and southern Europe from the Middle East and Africa explains part of the unrest. In some nations, voters have become tired of being ruled by parliamentary parties they thought had held power too long. Formerly popular leaders, such as Angela Merkel of Germany, have lost much of their popularity. Economic reverses have also badly affected some states.
“Coalitions of chaos” postulates that some countries have become almost ungovernable. First, it hypothesizes that some countries cannot form stable governments either because the largest party does not command a majority in parliament or because parties cannot organize a stable coalition on the basis of election results. In addition, many countries which have long lived with coalition governments now take longer to form new coalitions, leading to voter unrest. Some governments have not managed to pass the basic laws necessary to fund the responsibilities of the state.
In addition, obvious government corruption angers the voters. This results in more mass demonstrations that in the relatively quiescent 1990s and 20-oughts.
Happily, The Economist story does not suggest that Europe has unraveled. But it also clearly states that there is less political stability in general than there was only a few years ago.
If that is true, why is it true? Nearly the entire world went through The Great Recession, but that occurred over as decade ago. Economically, most developed nations are doing relatively well. So why are voters so upset?
In many instances, voters have expressed their displeasure by not voting at all. Voter turnout has declined in many democracies. But again, why? Shouldn’t intelligent votes help correct the direction of ships of state that are deemed to have gone off course?
It is alleged that the gap between the very highest income level and everyone else is widening worldwide. If that is true, it us understandable why there is political unrest. Growing inequity creates growing disenchantment. But why is the gap growing? And why aren’t elected officials doing something to narrow the gap? Has everyone in every government been bought off by the extremely wealthy?
All of us can answer these questions in our own way. Nevertheless, it is difficult convincingly to point to completely satisfactory answers. Nevertheless, increasing political instability should concern all of us.
Probably World War II was a tragically necessary war. However, that may be because World War I, a totally foolish war, was settled so badly by the Treaty of Versailles. “The War to End All Wars” virtually guaranteed an even more ghastly conflict, because the treaty which halted the war was so poorly crafted.
Three empires --- Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia --- stumbled into World War I. Another, the United Kingdom, managed to stitch together a coalition with the Romanovs to defeat the Hohenzollerns and the Habsburgs, but it took four very bloody years to do it. The First World War was in almost every respect a colossal diplomatic, military, and political blunder.
The Second World War became necessary because the western powers did not sufficiently curtail Germany, Japan, Italy, and their allies in their rapid militarization during the Thirties. Having observed the terrible carnage of 1914-18, Britain and her friends, including America, did not want to re-militarize, fearing it might lead to another world war. Had they beefed up their militaries, they might have averted World War II.
Do the Twenty-Teens seem much more like the Nineteen-Teens to you than the Nineteen-Thirties? They do to me. Is the political malaise being experienced by many millions of voters around the world more like the 1910s than the 1930s? It seems so to me.
Of course there are very significant differences between world circumstances now from world circumstances at any point in the twentieth century. Wealth is distributed much more evenly among developed nations now than then. The standard of living is far greater for a far greater percentage of the world’s population today than it was in either 1914 or 1939.
Economic unhappiness is not the main reason for so much European unrest. Rather there appears to be a widespread dissatisfaction regarding government in general. Democracy is wearing thin in too many European nations.
Europe is not the only place where this is occurring, however. There have been movements toward more authoritarianism in formerly relatively democratic states elsewhere in the world. Mexico, Panama, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Tunisia, Israel, Jordan, India, Indonesia, and Japan seem to be turning from “rule by the people” (democracy) to “rule by the strong-man” (autocracy).
The world’s largest country, China, is not and never has been a democracy. Whatever glimmers of democratic leanings there may have been since the death of Mao Zedong, they are being systematically squelched by Xi Jinping, who has become the world’s current classic strong-man. Narendra Modi in India, prime minister of the second most populous nation in the world, is also using a ever-heavier hand in leading his nation.
The third most-populous state, the USA, is led by a president who may be exercising more individual executive power than anyone since Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. By what political alchemy did this happen? What factors led the American electorate to conclude this needed to happen?
Half the world’s people live in somewhat shaky democracies. Why are the foundations so visibly quivering?
No single factor or small group of factors explain why there is so much global unrest. But if international news is widely studied, it is inescapable to avoid the impression that politicians, elected representatives, and entire governments are held in high disregard and distaste by many millions of voters.
The period known as the Dark Ages occurred in Europe in the middle of the first Christian millennium as a result of what were then called “the barbarian invasions.” The Central Asian barbarians were not necessarily “barbaric” at all. They were just better organized and more powerful than the politically and militarily anemic Romans who unsuccessfully tried to stop their advance.
Some people may deduce the large migration of people headed for countries that seem to them are more stable and prosperous is the 21st century equivalent of barbarian hordes, but this is by no means a similar historical movement. The “barbarians” came to conquer; the immigrants come to find employment and to establish a better individual existence.
Still, does the evidence of worldwide political dissatisfaction represent a new and different example of another Dark Age? Has democracy, which grew quickly after the American Revolution throughout the world, lost its optimistic vitality? In the collective lives of the human race, do we subconsciously prefer self-appointed strong leaders to rule over us rather than having leaders whom we carefully choose for ourselves? Are our current problems the result of voters failing sufficiently to study the issues of government, or not to vote at all?
In having re-read this jeremiad several times to edit it, I realize I am painting quite a bleak picture. I have asked many questions but provided almost no answers or solutions.
My penultimate point is this: humanity always tends to put too much emphasis on individual wellbeing, and too little on collective wellbeing. The current erosion of democracy may illustrate that tendency in a dangerous fashion. The world’s population seems to have concluded this: If WE are not thriving, I cannot thrive, and therefore we must throw them all out (the politicians).
Is that an acceptable conclusion? Have we become too concerned about ME, and that is severely undermining US in the noble democratic experiment of the human race?
Do you have any answers to my somber questions? If so, I hope to hear from you.
John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.