will democracy last another 50s years in the UK?

[egb_hibs]

There's talk of democracy being in crisis these days. But is it?

Begging the leave of some of my fellows not to fork us into a discussion of how what we have isn't democracy, will what we have, whatever you would call it, last? Or will it change out of all recognition or indeed be explicitly replaced by something else.

[Bartok]

Democracy is usually upheld as the most naturally just system of government. Some historians argue that because it is just it is dearly prized by the people who share in the power of the state, and it is therefore very robust. People like Stephen Ambrose point to the victory of the Allies in the Second World War as an example of this. Besides the obvious point that the war against Germany could not have been won without the aid of Soviet Russia, I would argue that the democratic west has become weaker in several ways since the 1940s.

People in the west have become more comfortable, indulged and downright soft than ever before. The prosperity engendered by the last 50 years of economic growth has not helped the quality of our armed services. If a total war occurred which required conscription I'd be pessimistic about our fighting qualities. Can you imagine you and yer mates enduring a winter of trench warfare in Central Asia or hand-to-hand combat against moslem fanatics in a North African summer? I don't think many of us would be able to hack it.

As well as a physical softness, I would say that there goes a much more serious moral decay. A half-century of increasingly Godless hedonism has resulted in a short-sighted materialist mind-set. No one wants to do anything unless there's a buck or two in it. Our sense of what is right or wrong is criss-crossed by the modern dilemmas and obfuscations posed by pluralistic politics. Our open liberal democracies have also brought the benefits of a free press, which is usually held to be a good thing. But the down side is that the public know what happens out there in the 'Nam or Iraq, and often it is not all good news. The west's ability to take heavy losses in the field is not strong, and politicians who are blamed for large numbers of body bags are likely to be dumped in short order. The result is that no one in the west has a fecking clue what to do when a crisis occurs, and whoever decides to do something about it had better get real results real soon or forget about remaining in power. Every time there is a war that isn't won in an instant the shit hits the fan.

For these reasons I reckon the west has not the moral strength or stamina to stand up to a determined and well organised enemy. Having nuclear weapons will probably prove to be of no advantage in engaging the sort of enemy the west now faces, since the targets are no longer cities in hostile countries but desert camps or caves in friendly or neutral ones. Bombing from the air has the advantage of yielding low Allied casualties and does cause damage to enemy forces, but there are limits to what it can do and it is incredibly expensive. Ground troops are needed to achieve anything meaningful, and that means high Allied casualties. President Bush is desperate to get out of the mess the USA is in over in Iraq, but there are not enough trained and disciplined troops to do what is needed over there, and there is no public appetite for conscription.

Meanwhile, radical anti-western islamism in general and Al Qaeda in particular are gaining in support and strength. It is going to be a long struggle but there can only be one long-term winner. And it isn't us.

[egb_hibs]

excellent peice, pretty much sums up all my concerns in a more literate way than I could. also, where if I posted it it would probably cause people to suspect I was grinding an axe, hopefully this won't be the response to you, and people would realise your points about hedonism, press freedom et al are not about what is right or even nice, but what is reality, in terms of consequence.

on the other hand, and on a cautionary note; it does all sound a bit like 1920s / 30s socialist and fascist rhetoric about liberal dissolution

[snoots]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

Democracy is usually upheld as the most naturally just system of government. Some historians argue that because it is just it is dearly prized by the people who share in the power of the state, and it is therefore very robust. People like Stephen Ambrose point to the victory of the Allies in the Second World War as an example of this. Besides the obvious point that the war against Germany could not have been won without the aid of Soviet Russia, I would argue that the democratic west has become weaker in several ways since the 1940s.

So far so good.

People in the west have become more comfortable, indulged and downright soft than ever before. The prosperity engendered by the last 50 years of economic growth has not helped the quality of our armed services. If a total war occurred which required conscription I'd be pessimistic about our fighting qualities. Can you imagine you and yer mates enduring a winter of trench warfare in Central Asia or hand-to-hand combat against moslem fanatics in a North African summer? I don't think many of us would be able to hack it.

As well as a physical softness, I would say that there goes a much more serious moral decay. A half-century of increasingly Godless hedonism has resulted in a short-sighted materialist mind-set. No one wants to do anything unless there's a buck or two in it. Our sense of what is right or wrong is criss-crossed by the modern dilemmas and obfuscations posed by pluralistic politics. Our open liberal democracies have also brought the benefits of a free press, which is usually held to be a good thing. But the down side is that the public know what happens out there in the 'Nam or Iraq, and often it is not all good news. The west's ability to take heavy losses in the field is not strong, and politicians who are blamed for large numbers of body bags are likely to be dumped in short order. The result is that no one in the west has a fecking clue what to do when a crisis occurs, and whoever decides to do something about it had better get real results real soon or forget about remaining in power. Every time there is a war that isn't won in an instant the shit hits the fan.

For these reasons I reckon the west has not the moral strength or stamina to stand up to a determined and well organised enemy. Having nuclear weapons will probably prove to be of no advantage in engaging the sort of enemy the west now faces, since the targets are no longer cities in hostile countries but desert camps or caves in friendly or neutral ones. Bombing from the air has the advantage of yielding low Allied casualties and does cause damage to enemy forces, but there are limits to what it can do and it is incredibly expensive. Ground troops are needed to achieve anything meaningful, and that means high Allied casualties. President Bush is desperate to get out of the mess the USA is in over in Iraq, but there are not enough trained and disciplined troops to do what is needed over there, and there is no public appetite for conscription.

Meanwhile, radical anti-western islamism in general and Al Qaeda in particular are gaining in support and strength. It is going to be a long struggle but there can only be one long-term winner. And it isn't us.

...but this seems to have littlel to do with Democracy and more to do with preparation for war - do you see both as the same thing?

[gun ainm]

I hope we may evolve a bit in the next 50 years and become more democratic, but to answer the question as posed....

I agree with DC to a certain extent in that the west has no appetite to fight any war that would involve large numbers of casualties but have a few observations..

1. this has only been tested since WWII in conflicts that have been essentially imperialist in nature - they have not been concerned with protecting ourselves directly. This may have something to do with the appetite as much as the softness instilled by "democracy"

2. i dont agree our representative democracy is at threat from others as portrayed, the clash of civilisations idea is waaaaay overhyped imo - the hypothesis serves some interests and has a possibility of becoming a self fulfilling prophesy but IMO we wont see a major war between the west and the rest in the near to mid future. :fingers crossed smiley:

3. nuclear - we should get rid of all of them quick smart, only then would we have the moral authority (for want of a better expression) to argue for non proliferation - there seems to be a recognition from DCs comments that they are past their sell by date in terms of a deterrant - so why spend billions on the trident renewal etc?

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by snoots

...but this seems to have littlel to do with Democracy and more to do with preparation for war - do you see both as the same thing?

I was trying to show that there is a link, at least imo. Democracy has delivered a stable, prosperous society but also one which is not good at making important decisions and lacks the right stuff for a major conflict. Democracy imo does not produce tough resolute societies or governments. It creates hedonism, self-iinterest and social fragmentation.

To answer egb, you are right that it sounds like inter-war rhetoric. Maybe it is.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by theselkie

1. this has only been tested since WWII in conflicts that have been essentially imperialist in nature - they have not been concerned with protecting ourselves directly. This may have something to do with the appetite as much as the softness instilled by "democracy"

good point Selks, but I'm still swayed by DC's view. For example, were a WW2 scenario to materialise today, what do you think would happen?

Could the populace be persuaded to go to war on behalf of obscure diplomatic alliances, or even on behalf of a persecuted group? Or would the much more complex set of information available to today's punters either paralyse them or lead them to conclude that, actually, surrender to a bunch of baddies who wouldn't treat us that badly, is preferrable to dying for the next guy, who'd get a harder time. I don't know to be honest.

2. i dont agree our representative democracy is at threat from others as portrayed, the clash of civilisations idea is waaaaay overhyped imo - the hypothesis serves some interests and has a possibility of becoming a self fulfilling prophesy but IMO we wont see a major war between the west and the rest in the near to mid future. :fingers crossed smiley:

i'm not sure that the CoC will ever be a self fulfilling prophecy. even if, for example, one could attribute the roots of some future larger war back to, say, iraq, the CoC argues against just such adventures. anyways, i don't know if such a clash will happen, but if it does it will be the product of lots of forces in different corners of the globe, for many of whom, such western pondering will be quite irrelevant.

3. nuclear - we should get rid of all of them quick smart, only then would we have the moral authority (for want of a better expression) to argue for non proliferation - there seems to be a recognition from DCs comments that they are past their sell by date in terms of a deterrant - so why spend billions on the trident renewal etc?

There's an interesting argument that while the language of asymmetric warfare right now is often used to describe the levelling of the playing field between small groups and big - usually western - powers, due to access to WMDs, that in future this levelling effect will work the other way; a west with a collapsed and aged population will need WMDs to give it any hope of matching the exponentially greater conventional capability that Chinese and Islamic world's could put into the field.

[egb_hibs]

Snoot, DC - re snoots point about democracy vs preparing for war: I personally think DC's reply is relevant as it addresses the question of the thread, about whether democracy will survive. part of this is whether the component parts of democratic societies allow them to respond to, and thus survive threats. one of those threats is obviously war. there are of course others.

I'll have a go later at thinking up a list of some of those threats. would be interested in other's views of this, not least students of history like you two, and political theorists like the selkie chap.

[Bartok]

It's a good shout that war is not the only crisis we face. Global warming is an issue that reveals the inability to act on behalf of the developed nations, and it is compounded by being a global, not a national problem. Most national crises faced by the western nations have been posed by their enemies abroad, but that may change. As has been pointed out above, the public attitude to an external threat might become much more resolute if their own homes, families etc were in the line of fire. But even then there will be problems for the government in maintaining support for a major war in a western democracy. The two world wars saw plenty of dissent, most of it harshly dealt with and kept under wraps, but in the future it is reasonablke to suppose the problems would be much greater. The old 'king and country' loyalties just don't exist any more.

In peacetime, democratic governments are hamstrung by the need to appease the greatest number of their citizens. The nature of plurastic politics is that whatever the government does will be lampooned and denounced by the party of opposition, so every action taken will be the subject of debate and of public confusion. Non-democratic governments tend to rule by the forcible suppression of dissent or by consent based on religious grounds, sometimes both. They have no such problems. This is why during the world wars the government in Britain became to all intents and purposes a socialist state.

Two questions emerge from this. The first is that conflicts between the two types of government are likely to be won if the non-democratic side can resist the initial onslaught of hi-tech weaponry released from the air; once you start inflicting casualties on the western powers you are causing them major problems. Guerilla warfare against the developed nations is incredibly effective. The second point is that when democracy is exposed to the wider world as weak, what chance is there of selling it to developing nations in a fragile context, as was tried in Iraq? The audit of war vindicates undemocratic governments and condemn democracies.

[egb_hibs]

Has any major war ever been won by the more democratic side (i say this as obviously 'more democratic' is relative over history). I also say this as someone who credit's hitler's defeat to the russki's.

I'm reading a book about the sparta v athens war at the moment, and while I don't know the details yet, I do know that - in terms of what I gather is the mainstream view of when the war ended - sparta won, despite starting off way behind democratic athens in terms of wealth, technology, influence etc. the book i'm reading is not shy about stating it's purpose; that america today resembles the culturally imperialist but democratic and liberal athens, and back then, many 3rd parties ended up preferring totalitarian sparta.

[Pilrig]

I don't know about the rest of you but I've long since lost the delusion that putting a cross on a piece of paper makes the blindest bit of difference to my life.

[egb_hibs]

things i think are difficult for democracies to face in the 21st century, with a reason why:

- Global warming: problem can only be solved by reduction in selfishness, which can only be achieved by reduction in freedom. also transcends ability of any single govt to address

- demographic collapse: problem can only be solved by reduction in selfishness, which can only be achieved by reduction in freedom. alternative is too keep importing from non-democratic cultures, with inevitable transfusion of those values. if not, back to square one as population declines again.

- economic efficiency of collectivism harnessed to capitalism - there's a strong argument imho that liberalism was the best context for technological innovation, but collectivist societies are better placed to exploit it.

- Sustained low intensity war - for the reasons DC describes, i don't believe democracy's can sustain many big terrorist incidents without becoming less democratic or folding completely. things have been quiet for now, but once iran is able to distribute weapons grade nuclear material and with ever growing networks of indigenous terrorists, i think we may be in the eye of the storm

- Real war - bit further out, but chinese or organised islamic forces would eat us for lunch, unless we nuked them, which we wouldn't, and even if we did, we could not thereafter survive as a democracy

- globalisation: democracy's can't stop the flight of wealth and with no solid grounds for societal cohesion will suffer worse in terms of identity crisis and redundancy of purpose as people migrate to where labour is required. the far right will rise over the next few decades as a result, but will not ever make serious headway unless there is a serious trauma, like a nuclear terrorist event. if there is, then they have a real chance.

- culture wars and ennui: liberal societies, having cured most of their major domestic problems, and impotent in the face of problems which deny cosy solutions; everything from african poverty to islamist radicalism, see a redirection of their waning ideological convictions, now dedicated to tearing themselves apart in culture wars over (their own historical) religions, relatively trivial differences in social policy, always blaming themselves for the problems that they face and so on...

- most people don't care once they're materially comfortable; much of the positive sentiments that inspired political engagement on the part of the populace are gone, now that domestic situation is much improved for most. only real hooks now are negative ones. at the moment thankfully the mainstream steer clear of these by and large.

- generational conflict: trouble for many of us when we're older i think. the young aren't going to be amused at the crippling financial burden of supporting us, cos we didn't create enough of them, preferring as we did to extend our carefree youth indefinitely. add to that the fact that it's all old fuckers that will be sitting in the impossible to attain housing stock, and a diminished sense of generational obligation - what wasn't bequeathed will not, after all, be reciprocated. and of course, the inheritance of polluted planet exhausted of the resources that fuelled our boom years; the young will not be pleased, not pleased at all. conceivably, the corrolorary of all those abortions might end up needing to be some compulsory euthanasias.

- resource exhaustion; if technology doesn't deliver alternatives to our dependency on fossil fuels, democracies will not survive the reacquaintance with life at the harsh end.

- bono is a mortal man. when he goes, surely we're fucked?

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

bono is a mortal man. when he goes, surely we're fucked?

[Archie]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

To answer egb, you are right that it sounds like inter-war rhetoric. Maybe it is.

It could be a moral rearmament tract from the 1930s.

[snoots]

Originally Posted by Pilrig

I don't know about the rest of you but I've long since lost the delusion that putting a cross on a piece of paper makes the blindest bit of difference to my life.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

things i think are difficult for democracies to face in the 21st century, with a reason why:

- Global warming: problem can only be solved by reduction in selfishness, which can only be achieved by reduction in freedom. also transcends ability of any single govt to address

Agreed. Despite all the evidence that exists confirming rapid and radical climate change, the general public are not keen on making the changes needed to act on this. It is still a debate people don't want to have and I don't see that changing much.

- demographic collapse: problem can only be solved by reduction in selfishness, which can only be achieved by reduction in freedom. alternative is too keep importing from non-democratic cultures, with inevitable transfusion of those values. if not, back to square one as population declines again.

Agreed, and we can add a superabundance of economically worthless old people to the stats as an added problem, as you point out below.

- economic efficiency of collectivism harnessed to capitalism - there's a strong argument imho that liberalism was the best context for technological innovation, but collectivist societies are better placed to exploit it.

Yes I agree again, it's difficult to argue with the astonishing results of Stalin's Five Year Plans in terms of what collectivism can deliver. At a huge human cost, in the case of the Soviet Union of course. I'd add that food and water supplies will become a huge issue as global warming bites in, and big changes in agriculture will need to be introduced.

- Sustained low intensity war - for the reasons DC describes, i don't believe democracy's can sustain many big terrorist incidents without becoming less democratic or folding completely. things have been quiet for now, but once iran is able to distribute weapons grade nuclear material and with ever growing networks of indigenous terrorists, i think we may be in the eye of the storm

- Real war - bit further out, but chinese or organised islamic forces would eat us for lunch, unless we nuked them, which we wouldn't, and even if we did, we could not thereafter survive as a democracy

Again, no argument from me on our situation on war. I don't think we have the resolve to use nuclear weapons on anything but a very limited scale, perhaps not even then. If the western powers keep showing the world how weak they are, how long will it be before someone comes for us?

- globalisation: democracy's can't stop the flight of wealth and with no solid grounds for societal cohesion will suffer worse in terms of identity crisis and redundancy of purpose as people migrate to where labour is required. the far right will rise over the next few decades as a result, but will not ever make serious headway unless there is a serious trauma, like a nuclear terrorist event. if there is, then they have a real chance.

God forbid, but right again. There are signs that the far right is already emerging across Europe in ominous fashion. I don't know about your assertion that they will not make serious headway. That depends on how the liberal democracies handle things. It was their inadequacy and cluelessness in the past that led to the rise of totalitarian regimes.

- culture wars and ennui: liberal societies, having cured most of their major domestic problems, and impotent in the face of problems which deny cosy solutions; everything from african poverty to islamist radicalism, see a redirection of their waning ideological convictions, now dedicated to tearing themselves apart in culture wars over (their own historical) religions, relatively trivial differences in social policy, always blaming themselves for the problems that they face and so on...

- most people don't care once they're materially comfortable; much of the positive sentiments that inspired political engagement on the part of the populace are gone, now that domestic situation is much improved for most. only real hooks now are negative ones. at the moment thankfully the mainstream steer clear of these by and large.

Every sign in other words of a classically decadent society.

- generational conflict: trouble for many of us when we're older i think. the young aren't going to be amused at the crippling financial burden of supporting us, cos we didn't create enough of them, preferring as we did to extend our carefree youth indefinitely. add to that the fact that it's all old fuckers that will be sitting in the impossible to attain housing stock, and a diminished sense of generational obligation - what wasn't bequeathed will not, after all, be reciprocated. and of course, the inheritance of polluted planet exhausted of the resources that fuelled our boom years; the young will not be pleased, not pleased at all. conceivably, the corrolorary of all those abortions might end up needing to be some compulsory euthanasias.

Yes, but again it is such a controversial issue that even pressing need will not produce action in a liberal democracy. It will take some crackpot dictator to take really radical decisions on social or economic policy.

- resource exhaustion; if technology doesn't deliver alternatives to our dependency on fossil fuels, democracies will not survive the reacquaintance with life at the harsh end.

Agreed once more, there is simply not enough being done to face the reality of fossil fuel exhaustion at the moment. The nature of revolving governments is that support for this sort of vital initiative always gets chucked further down the agenda by incoming governments who have other priorities based on their own political needs. Politicians in a democracy tend to sell themselves on their ability to run a country, but in fact all their actions indicate that their prime aim is to get themselves elected again. This objective is not always hand in hand with what is good for the nation.

[gun ainm]

Your pessimistic/realistic analysis of the short comings of liberal "democracy" is all well and good, and i'd go as far to say i agree with most of it (without going in to specifics) - surely however the next question is more important - what do we do about it?

I infer from much of EGBs reasoning that a benign dictatorship would be his ideal, however thats not realistic and certainly not securable. My recollection is that you both (DC & EGB) have always advocated our current model as the best available, while recognising that there a flaws to the system. Given that those flaws appear to be leading us towards what you describe as societal collapse (and possible world war) whats the theoretical solution - what system would produce the best results (not which policies)? making yourself the "great leader" isnt really a viable option much as it may appeal to the ego...