Why WikiLeaks is important
The WikiLeaks intelligence documents have started appearing in the papers. There’s no earth-shattering revelation, yet this disclosure to the public is extremely important because it brings to light our two alternative conceptions of democracy. In the classic idea of democracy, the one you learn at school and the one reflected in the structure of electoral institutions, participatory democracy is the ideal and representation is merely a device to make democracy practical at large scale. In classic democracy, the public is at all times the source of authority and arbiter of decisions. Openness is essential, and the role of the media is to keep the representatives in line with the wishes of the public. In classic democracy there is no question that the information recently released by WikiLeaks should be routinely open. While that might make the work of government at times inconvenient, this type of democracy is the safest and least oppressive form of government we have so far discovered.
The alternative view of democracy, now prevalent de facto, is the democracy of the management firm. The state is governed like a large public firm. Political parties are management consultancies bidding for contracts to run the firm for a number of years. Elections are the general meeting, where citizens vote one share but large investors (businesses) vote according to their share of the economy. The role of the media, if it’s not the firm’s own newsletter, is to carry advertising. In this kind of democracy, the management firm, once hired, is allowed and expected to work behind closed doors. Their performance is judged only by aggregates, such as economic growth. Citizens are certainly not routinely informed, and have no say unless some investor lobby (large business interest) feels that the management performs poorly and calls for an early general meeting. If that is the democracy we have, WikiLeaks is wholly irresponsible and out of place.
Which type of democracy do you think we should have?
North Korea’s time
The United States, while making noises about Swedish whistle blowers and Iranian nuclear scientists, is sending an aircraft carrier group to North Korea to prepare for the possible start of World War III. Would it come to that? I think unlikely, but only thanks to the enlightened patronage of China. Clearly, North Korea is a primitive barking dog dictatorship, and it’s up to Beijing to support or let go of the regime there. So far, supporting Pyongyang has cost China little. They were a convenient headache to South Korean and Japanese growth and prosperity, and not much else. Now, they’re overstepping their provincial limits. China has so far expressed displeasure at US attempt to contain North Korea, which could be taken to mean “Hands off” but could also mean “Let us deal with this”. I think, and sincerely hope, it’s the latter. I expect Mr Jintao to do a Gorbachev, where he visits the puppet leader of the satellite and, essentially, fires them. Let’s hope that this is the course China has chosen.
Leave the Euro alone!
The current speculation, popular in the Anglo-saxon world, that the Euro is “over” or “breaking up” is grossly irresponsible. It’s equivalent to having recurrent articles in, say, the Eurozone press alleging that American and British financial firms are insolvent and about to collapse. Both fair game given freedom of speech, but both highly political and grossly irresponsible. Although the Eurozone has issues, namely a trade imbalance and lack of consolidated mechanisms for debt restructuring or devaluation, the currency itself is neither at fault nor failing. Suggesting that it is is little more than politically motivated speculation. The value of a currency is, ultimately, borne of public confidence – Just like the value of bank deposits, or shares, or CDOs. Undermining is certainly an option, but should be recognized as a hostile political act.
The disastrous British government
It should now be apparent to all that the British government and it’s Big Society brand amounts to nothing more than an abdication of the state’s responsibilities towards the citizens. We give back the welfare state, and hey, we can have the Big Society instead. The state undertakes to do nothing for its citizens. The Big Society will do it instead, if the Big Society wants. It’s the fast track to the kind of libertarian society that Hayek could only dream of, and there hasn’t even been a debate over whether Britain wants it. Sadly, political discourse in Britain has been weakened and bought by media to the point that real policies and issues do not matter. The business party didn’t win the election, but made a deal to power, and is now dismantling the state before anyone can act. They have no mandate to do so and ought to be challenged and impeached. As for the Liberal Democrats, they deserve the dustbin of history.
2010-12-06
News, Politics