Five Strategic Mistakes
Summary: Strategic mistakes by policy makers have created havoc and political disasters in the beginning of the 21st century. Five strategic mistakes are highlighted in this essay. These have had a global impact of enormous proportions on decisions. They can be corrected by a change in strategic thinking amongst policy makers.
I believe that progress and pluralism is inextricably linked in the 21st century.
As an expert in international political economy, I wanted to examine some of the assumptions being made by policy thinkers about strategic quesions in the modern world.
In this article, I seek to highlight five strategic mistakes made by politicy experts about the 21st century. Although, it is tempting to say these are the mistakes of the neo-Conservatives, but I will not say this because I do not dismiss all the thinking of the neo-Conservatives and I do not believe the five strategic mistakes are confined to them at all.
Strategic Mistake One
1. Has the battle for democracy been won? Is it really 'The End of History'.
Progress in a political system is found in a pluralist democracy. The biggest event in this respect was the defeat of communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union in 1989 and 1991. During the Second World War, Nazi and fascist dictatorship was defeated across Europe as well as their Japanese military allies in the East. Democracy triumphed twice in decisive ways.
Francis Fukuyama, the international political economy expert, described this as ‘End of History’ (in the famous book of the title) stating that liberal democracy had triumphed on a global stage. However, this made an assumption that democracy in developed or Western countries was the only democracy that mattered. This was a strategically mistaken characterization. Democracy only triumphed in the West and developed countries.
Ironically, communist dictatorship also survived in China, North Korea and a few other places. The mistake was not to take seriously the blow to democracy in the defeat of the Tiananmen Square Democracy Movement of China – in a very close run thing, I would argue with top Chinese leaders equivocal about it and the hardliners finally winning the argument for dictatorship through using military crackdown against peaceful protesters. Equally, the threat of ‘Islamic fascism’ was also a real. This is the form of third world religious dictatorship in the name of a religious, which is far removed from progressive or renaissance pluralist Islam with scientific ideas and ideas of multi-faith/secular states. Third world dictatorships were still alive across the world (e.g. Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, Venezuela, Hamas regime in Gaza, etc). Today, these dictatorships use the rhetoric of ‘anti-imperialism’ as a way to obtain support across the world including in the Western left/liberal circles. However, the main attack by these dictatorships is on democracy in the West and specifically democracy in developing and emerging economies. There is a very serious battle going on in the world. Anti-imperialism is used to sap away the support from democracy. The battle has not been won. It is being fought.
Terrorism is also a modern form of attack on democracy in the West.
So democracy has not won its final battle. To believe this is a false sense of triumphalism. It belittles the challenges faced by democrats across the world specifically in the developing and emerging world.
Strategic Mistake Two
2. Clash of Civilisations and Racism– Is it reactionary?
The second major strategic mistake in international political economy has been to back authoritarian religious movements in the name of democracy. The whole ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis and neoconservative policy was a strategic blunder. The Christian right sought to attack other cultures and religions and undermine the progressive movement in the West. It also sought to mobilize the most right wing elements of Christian mass movement into an anti-progressive movement across the world. The only really progressive movement in the modern world is one based on pluralism: it’s known as ‘multi-cultural’, ‘multi-faith’ and ‘secular’ society and states. In Europe, ‘the clash of civilisations’ took on the form of a neo-racist and neo-fascist movements – with the most prominent political crisis caused by the Presidential run-off in France with the National Front leader Le Pen. The degradation and regression of democracy through such a sectarian political position has weakened the cause of liberal democracy. Champions of progress need to reclaim this ground away from the populist, governmental and mass movement ‘clash of civilisation’/racist supporters and reclaim a strongly pluralist democracy at a political and cultural/faith/secular level. Freedom of the individual and freedom of the minority/oppressed groups is at the heart of a modern democracy. This principle has to be fought for in the West as well as in the East, North and South.
Cultural pluralism is a very positive development in the world. It is enriching in terms of cultural renaissance in the world. It empowers people across different continents, whose ancestors have been subject to Western imperialism. Cultural uniformity hides a racist agenda. It is also not sustainable in terms of real global trends such as the development of emerging and developing economies.
The notion of the Rainbow Coalition is an attempt to create a movement based on progress (i.e. freedom of the individual and freedom of the minority/oppressed groups) and pluralism (cultural pluralism, multi-faith and multi-cultural/ secular society and state). It seeks to route out intolerance based on genuine cultural differences and different beliefs without seeking to divide humanity or endorse reactionary views.
Dynamic cultural fusions and mixes are part of a creative and rich world at ease with difference. The different dimensions and experiential perspectives and histories of humanity are not negated. They are affirmed within the framework of the recognition of the universality of humanity with equal human rights. They acknowledge the progressive traditions of different societies. Technology and science is acknowledged to be a global inheritance across different societies.
The monopoly of the West and Christianity over the notion of civilization, progressive, scientific and humanist tradition is ended. A new phase of history is opened up whereby all human contribution across different parts of the world is recognized as precious and celebrated in a very positive and public way. There is an equality of worth given to human beings across the planet as individuals and groups.
Strategic Mistake Three
3. Modern Capitalism and the Modern State in late 20th and early 21st century.
Equally, I believe that a strategic mistake has been made on the relationship between capitalism and the modern state. Capitalism has triumphed across the world as an economic system based on the role of the market as the dynamic element in economic progress. The evidence on this is overwhelming. Soviet Union and East Europe gave up state communist economics, but so did China. One of the reasons for the success of China has been its wholesale adoption of the capitalist market system in the management of the economy. Instead of fighting a cold war on the economic front, it created an alliance with Western capitalism through a complex system of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), etc. Russia still has a cold war mindset on economic relations with Western companies, apart from its own failures to create adequate institutional arrangements for the legal functioning of capitalism in a fair way. North Korea is the only major state communist state reliant on military exports and denial of terrible hardships (e.g. mass famines) faced by its own people.
State socialist economics also suffered a major setback across the world. Nationalisation of industries has been discredited and state control of the economy to engineer self-sufficiency has shown to have failed. In the UK, this policy was abandoned by Labour (right and Blairite) and attacked by the Conservatives through a wave of privatization under Margaret Thatcher. In other places, it was abandoned in different political circumstances. In 1991, India abandoned this policy faced with humiliation of its economic failure – and adopted both increasing liberal internal market and free trade policies. There is a broad consensus on this (despite some emergency nationalization of the banks during the period of the recession).
However, there has been a critical debate on the merits of ‘Anglo-Saxon Capitalism’ (USA/UK) and European continental capitalism. I do not dismiss the arguments and I do not have some reactive positions. However, my starting point is not small state (although efficient expenditure practices and prudent use of tax policy should be ruthless pursued). My starting point is that the capitalist state has triumphed because of the success of its welfare and institutional legal frameworks. As I argue in one of my previous articles, there was a cross-party consensus during the most dynamic period of UK capitalism (the Industrial Revolution) that social and democratic reforms were part and parcel of a free market and free trade economy: Disraeli (Conservative) and Gladstone (Liberal) both supported very high levels of activity to civilize capitalism. In the US, there has been many phases of capitalist development. The late 19th century saw very tough controls on abuse such as the Sherman Anti-Trust measures of 1890. Germany during Bismarck introduced huge levels of insurance. All these measures showed that classical liberal capitalism was made civilized for the population and the worst features (callous) of the free market were eliminated prior to the arrival of the State Communist economics or State Socialism economics. There is a very rich tradition of Western capitalism seeking to introduce human progress measures to improve the full lives of people through the democratic state.
Strategic Mistake Four
4. Free Market Economics –The Human Progress Mission of Capitalism
‘Economics’ by The Economist magazine, the champion of free market economics in Europe, states that classical liberal free markets economics does not preclude different active welfare policies as well as active state interventions. I believe “a callous capitalism” arose in the West, through a series of confused policy thinking, based on trying to address real issues of the failures left behind by state communist and state socialist economics. The level of strategic misdirection caused by this trajectory of some bits of neoconservative economics has been extremely damaging to thinking about 21st century economics.
Economics is the servant of society and not its master. As a servant of society, economics has to deliver human progress through its economic policies and strategies. During the recent recession in the UK – monetary and Keynesian instruments were used - to mitigate the damages of the contagion, protecting people for a transitional period, proving loans to businesses, helping homeowners, stopping people losing their homes, seeking to develop new economic projects including pumping in some money for infrastructure, etc. Human progress requires helping people in trouble. So this exercise was well worth it.
The green critique of the damage to natural resources by specific types of over-use and danger its poses to the planet and humanity is very positive. Its solutions are based on notions of equity and lower consumption models in developing countries. Capitalism must be based on science and strategoc thinking rather than just short-terms trends. The future of the planet is of interest to all those who inhabit the planet.
However, my view is that neoconservative economic models are ‘callous’ and not effective. They will give capitalism a bad name and not produce dynamic economies. They identify some good things in society to protect people suffering hardship and want to attack them.
I believe that the basic model of free markets has to be based on the state protecting human progress in society. I also believe that the state has some role in providing a basic infrastructure for a modern society. This is an enabling and active role for the state. For instance, France has been good at building great railways through the state. It also managed to develop a very substantial energy infrastructure. These are the duties of the modern state.
The democratic state has the right to stop abuses by capitalism to defend the consumers, shareholders, state funds and to save capitalism from its own failures. There has to be a debate based on evidence and it may be that short-term selling has to heavily regulated (e.g. stop hedge funds try to destroy economies in order to purely enrich themselves by adopting anti-competitive behaviour). Modern capitalism must feel the pain of the people as responsible corporate members of society. They can be part of the solutions. However, callous capitalism has to be stopped by the state.
Strategic Mistake Five
5. Global Multi-Cultural Capitalism Today
Finally, modern day capitalism has become global capitalism. This has made a breakthrough for the developed/emerging economies in the world economy. Although even now, the world economy is still heavily based on the West (US and EU transactions are huge), there is a really powerful new set of world economies emerging. I have met so much denial of this reality of a plurality of global economic centres in the world economy amongst high level public policy makers, I worry that they will make another set of strategic blunders and take us down another blind ally.
The most powerful emerging economies, China and India, survived the recession with strong positive growth rates. China and some Middle East states are global holders of vast surplus funds and sovereign funds. Latin America and Africa also have strong emerging states.
This is multi-cultural global capitalism. A new set of alliances are needed at a global arena and a new set of complex principles are needed to engage with trade with dictators such as China – respecting their cultural difference and right to develop for its billions of people – but not respecting its dictatorship or its attempt to bully the world (e.g. its Asian neighbours).
I am glad that Forbes has shown that ‘multi-cultural capitalism’ exists on a global scale with dollar billionaires from all part of the world – with most new ones from Asian and emerging economies. This is an opportunity to reaffirm that ‘multi-cultural global society’ we live in.
When billions of people are escaping poverty (specifically in emerging economies), I expect the whole world to celebrate. The world economy has a new layer being added to it. With all it challenges, it does represent progress for humanity. Equally, there is a ‘multi-cultural poor people of the world’ with half the world living on less than $2 per day.
The conscience of capitalism should always be active. Progress must be sought everywhere. Our world is so far from perfect. We must draw in several billion into the world economy. Only when we have reached that goal and we have established pluralism in all corners of the world, can we say that there is an end to normal history of scarcity and an end to human repression. We can then use the term, ‘End of History’, without any hesitation.
Copyright Atma Singh 2010
I believe that progress and pluralism is inextricably linked in the 21st century.
As an expert in international political economy, I wanted to examine some of the assumptions being made by policy thinkers about strategic quesions in the modern world.
In this article, I seek to highlight five strategic mistakes made by politicy experts about the 21st century. Although, it is tempting to say these are the mistakes of the neo-Conservatives, but I will not say this because I do not dismiss all the thinking of the neo-Conservatives and I do not believe the five strategic mistakes are confined to them at all.
Strategic Mistake One
1. Has the battle for democracy been won? Is it really 'The End of History'.
Progress in a political system is found in a pluralist democracy. The biggest event in this respect was the defeat of communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union in 1989 and 1991. During the Second World War, Nazi and fascist dictatorship was defeated across Europe as well as their Japanese military allies in the East. Democracy triumphed twice in decisive ways.
Francis Fukuyama, the international political economy expert, described this as ‘End of History’ (in the famous book of the title) stating that liberal democracy had triumphed on a global stage. However, this made an assumption that democracy in developed or Western countries was the only democracy that mattered. This was a strategically mistaken characterization. Democracy only triumphed in the West and developed countries.
Ironically, communist dictatorship also survived in China, North Korea and a few other places. The mistake was not to take seriously the blow to democracy in the defeat of the Tiananmen Square Democracy Movement of China – in a very close run thing, I would argue with top Chinese leaders equivocal about it and the hardliners finally winning the argument for dictatorship through using military crackdown against peaceful protesters. Equally, the threat of ‘Islamic fascism’ was also a real. This is the form of third world religious dictatorship in the name of a religious, which is far removed from progressive or renaissance pluralist Islam with scientific ideas and ideas of multi-faith/secular states. Third world dictatorships were still alive across the world (e.g. Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, Venezuela, Hamas regime in Gaza, etc). Today, these dictatorships use the rhetoric of ‘anti-imperialism’ as a way to obtain support across the world including in the Western left/liberal circles. However, the main attack by these dictatorships is on democracy in the West and specifically democracy in developing and emerging economies. There is a very serious battle going on in the world. Anti-imperialism is used to sap away the support from democracy. The battle has not been won. It is being fought.
Terrorism is also a modern form of attack on democracy in the West.
So democracy has not won its final battle. To believe this is a false sense of triumphalism. It belittles the challenges faced by democrats across the world specifically in the developing and emerging world.
Strategic Mistake Two
2. Clash of Civilisations and Racism– Is it reactionary?
The second major strategic mistake in international political economy has been to back authoritarian religious movements in the name of democracy. The whole ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis and neoconservative policy was a strategic blunder. The Christian right sought to attack other cultures and religions and undermine the progressive movement in the West. It also sought to mobilize the most right wing elements of Christian mass movement into an anti-progressive movement across the world. The only really progressive movement in the modern world is one based on pluralism: it’s known as ‘multi-cultural’, ‘multi-faith’ and ‘secular’ society and states. In Europe, ‘the clash of civilisations’ took on the form of a neo-racist and neo-fascist movements – with the most prominent political crisis caused by the Presidential run-off in France with the National Front leader Le Pen. The degradation and regression of democracy through such a sectarian political position has weakened the cause of liberal democracy. Champions of progress need to reclaim this ground away from the populist, governmental and mass movement ‘clash of civilisation’/racist supporters and reclaim a strongly pluralist democracy at a political and cultural/faith/secular level. Freedom of the individual and freedom of the minority/oppressed groups is at the heart of a modern democracy. This principle has to be fought for in the West as well as in the East, North and South.
Cultural pluralism is a very positive development in the world. It is enriching in terms of cultural renaissance in the world. It empowers people across different continents, whose ancestors have been subject to Western imperialism. Cultural uniformity hides a racist agenda. It is also not sustainable in terms of real global trends such as the development of emerging and developing economies.
The notion of the Rainbow Coalition is an attempt to create a movement based on progress (i.e. freedom of the individual and freedom of the minority/oppressed groups) and pluralism (cultural pluralism, multi-faith and multi-cultural/ secular society and state). It seeks to route out intolerance based on genuine cultural differences and different beliefs without seeking to divide humanity or endorse reactionary views.
Dynamic cultural fusions and mixes are part of a creative and rich world at ease with difference. The different dimensions and experiential perspectives and histories of humanity are not negated. They are affirmed within the framework of the recognition of the universality of humanity with equal human rights. They acknowledge the progressive traditions of different societies. Technology and science is acknowledged to be a global inheritance across different societies.
The monopoly of the West and Christianity over the notion of civilization, progressive, scientific and humanist tradition is ended. A new phase of history is opened up whereby all human contribution across different parts of the world is recognized as precious and celebrated in a very positive and public way. There is an equality of worth given to human beings across the planet as individuals and groups.
Strategic Mistake Three
3. Modern Capitalism and the Modern State in late 20th and early 21st century.
Equally, I believe that a strategic mistake has been made on the relationship between capitalism and the modern state. Capitalism has triumphed across the world as an economic system based on the role of the market as the dynamic element in economic progress. The evidence on this is overwhelming. Soviet Union and East Europe gave up state communist economics, but so did China. One of the reasons for the success of China has been its wholesale adoption of the capitalist market system in the management of the economy. Instead of fighting a cold war on the economic front, it created an alliance with Western capitalism through a complex system of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), etc. Russia still has a cold war mindset on economic relations with Western companies, apart from its own failures to create adequate institutional arrangements for the legal functioning of capitalism in a fair way. North Korea is the only major state communist state reliant on military exports and denial of terrible hardships (e.g. mass famines) faced by its own people.
State socialist economics also suffered a major setback across the world. Nationalisation of industries has been discredited and state control of the economy to engineer self-sufficiency has shown to have failed. In the UK, this policy was abandoned by Labour (right and Blairite) and attacked by the Conservatives through a wave of privatization under Margaret Thatcher. In other places, it was abandoned in different political circumstances. In 1991, India abandoned this policy faced with humiliation of its economic failure – and adopted both increasing liberal internal market and free trade policies. There is a broad consensus on this (despite some emergency nationalization of the banks during the period of the recession).
However, there has been a critical debate on the merits of ‘Anglo-Saxon Capitalism’ (USA/UK) and European continental capitalism. I do not dismiss the arguments and I do not have some reactive positions. However, my starting point is not small state (although efficient expenditure practices and prudent use of tax policy should be ruthless pursued). My starting point is that the capitalist state has triumphed because of the success of its welfare and institutional legal frameworks. As I argue in one of my previous articles, there was a cross-party consensus during the most dynamic period of UK capitalism (the Industrial Revolution) that social and democratic reforms were part and parcel of a free market and free trade economy: Disraeli (Conservative) and Gladstone (Liberal) both supported very high levels of activity to civilize capitalism. In the US, there has been many phases of capitalist development. The late 19th century saw very tough controls on abuse such as the Sherman Anti-Trust measures of 1890. Germany during Bismarck introduced huge levels of insurance. All these measures showed that classical liberal capitalism was made civilized for the population and the worst features (callous) of the free market were eliminated prior to the arrival of the State Communist economics or State Socialism economics. There is a very rich tradition of Western capitalism seeking to introduce human progress measures to improve the full lives of people through the democratic state.
Strategic Mistake Four
4. Free Market Economics –The Human Progress Mission of Capitalism
‘Economics’ by The Economist magazine, the champion of free market economics in Europe, states that classical liberal free markets economics does not preclude different active welfare policies as well as active state interventions. I believe “a callous capitalism” arose in the West, through a series of confused policy thinking, based on trying to address real issues of the failures left behind by state communist and state socialist economics. The level of strategic misdirection caused by this trajectory of some bits of neoconservative economics has been extremely damaging to thinking about 21st century economics.
Economics is the servant of society and not its master. As a servant of society, economics has to deliver human progress through its economic policies and strategies. During the recent recession in the UK – monetary and Keynesian instruments were used - to mitigate the damages of the contagion, protecting people for a transitional period, proving loans to businesses, helping homeowners, stopping people losing their homes, seeking to develop new economic projects including pumping in some money for infrastructure, etc. Human progress requires helping people in trouble. So this exercise was well worth it.
The green critique of the damage to natural resources by specific types of over-use and danger its poses to the planet and humanity is very positive. Its solutions are based on notions of equity and lower consumption models in developing countries. Capitalism must be based on science and strategoc thinking rather than just short-terms trends. The future of the planet is of interest to all those who inhabit the planet.
However, my view is that neoconservative economic models are ‘callous’ and not effective. They will give capitalism a bad name and not produce dynamic economies. They identify some good things in society to protect people suffering hardship and want to attack them.
I believe that the basic model of free markets has to be based on the state protecting human progress in society. I also believe that the state has some role in providing a basic infrastructure for a modern society. This is an enabling and active role for the state. For instance, France has been good at building great railways through the state. It also managed to develop a very substantial energy infrastructure. These are the duties of the modern state.
The democratic state has the right to stop abuses by capitalism to defend the consumers, shareholders, state funds and to save capitalism from its own failures. There has to be a debate based on evidence and it may be that short-term selling has to heavily regulated (e.g. stop hedge funds try to destroy economies in order to purely enrich themselves by adopting anti-competitive behaviour). Modern capitalism must feel the pain of the people as responsible corporate members of society. They can be part of the solutions. However, callous capitalism has to be stopped by the state.
Strategic Mistake Five
5. Global Multi-Cultural Capitalism Today
Finally, modern day capitalism has become global capitalism. This has made a breakthrough for the developed/emerging economies in the world economy. Although even now, the world economy is still heavily based on the West (US and EU transactions are huge), there is a really powerful new set of world economies emerging. I have met so much denial of this reality of a plurality of global economic centres in the world economy amongst high level public policy makers, I worry that they will make another set of strategic blunders and take us down another blind ally.
The most powerful emerging economies, China and India, survived the recession with strong positive growth rates. China and some Middle East states are global holders of vast surplus funds and sovereign funds. Latin America and Africa also have strong emerging states.
This is multi-cultural global capitalism. A new set of alliances are needed at a global arena and a new set of complex principles are needed to engage with trade with dictators such as China – respecting their cultural difference and right to develop for its billions of people – but not respecting its dictatorship or its attempt to bully the world (e.g. its Asian neighbours).
I am glad that Forbes has shown that ‘multi-cultural capitalism’ exists on a global scale with dollar billionaires from all part of the world – with most new ones from Asian and emerging economies. This is an opportunity to reaffirm that ‘multi-cultural global society’ we live in.
When billions of people are escaping poverty (specifically in emerging economies), I expect the whole world to celebrate. The world economy has a new layer being added to it. With all it challenges, it does represent progress for humanity. Equally, there is a ‘multi-cultural poor people of the world’ with half the world living on less than $2 per day.
The conscience of capitalism should always be active. Progress must be sought everywhere. Our world is so far from perfect. We must draw in several billion into the world economy. Only when we have reached that goal and we have established pluralism in all corners of the world, can we say that there is an end to normal history of scarcity and an end to human repression. We can then use the term, ‘End of History’, without any hesitation.
Copyright Atma Singh 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment