Apologies to my readers for keeping the site without any updates for such a long period! I will commit myself to publication again, and try my best to keep it that way. As said in the intro post of the blog, I was already initially nervous whether I will continue regularly publishing content, so this should not come as a great surprise. However, I have enjoyed writing these even more than I thought. Finishing the drafts is the hard part, since I tend to get carried away with completely new ideas. Now back to the blog:
—–
My two previous posts have pointed out that the current media landscape is filled by straight analogues to interwar period. Journalists and other commentators constantly look for radical record-breaking events which can be compared with the most turbulent periods of the past century. Since eyewitnesses of the periods are diminishing, hardly any of the claims are taken under proper scrutiny.
Today’s world order has admittedly faced heavy turbulence. Some trace the turning point as far back as to the 1970s and 1980s when fiscal boundaries were challenged across the Global North. Back then, the common idea of fiscal prudence, later coined as Washington Consensus, emerged to minimize deficits and inflation. However, it is now clear that even the most fiscally prudent nations are struggling with aging populations and diverging demographics. Without significant growth surge in productivity, these nations will have to cut holes into their welfare and education institutions sooner or later.
The US as the world’s largest economy, meanwhile, shows example of complete ignorance to the ever-growing trajectory of its debt, as if the situation would continue the same forever. Considering that the US has used the debt primarily for tax cuts and military spending, the nation is actually lacking far behind its rivals who have always recognized the long-term values of welfare and education. Since all economic cycles end up with a bust, it is certain that the current debt spiral is also meeting a disastrous end. Technological industries might bring a rapid growth after a downfall, but American population can hardly take much more pain. A sign of the future can be seen in New York where people chose a mayor who represents the opposite of fiscal prudence. It remains to be seen whether it is actually a realistic option for the future.
Shortsighted populism of both Europe and the US has brought a sudden revival of authoritarian powers who disregard human rights and attack adversaries. The rise of China, in particular, has brought a strictly authoritarian regime into leadership positions of many global institutions, while still being allowed to continue offense against minorities, free speech, and strategic infrastructure. The support of strongmen and -women has even taken over many liberal democracies whose nationals have lost their trust for conventional policymaking. Obviously, a prime experiment of such case is being played in the White House. It displays that citizens raised in democracies gradually turn to strategies of intimidation when leaders one after another seem incapable to provide sufficient employment, welfare and education for their citizens.
Parallel histories
Some commentators have seen the development being something similar to 1920s and 1930s when several democracies crumbled and were overtaken by totalitarian dictatorships. Like today, the extremist groups of interwar period took advantage of primal fears and demanded a return to a nostalgic past. Yet, the current events compare poorly with the decades following the First World War. Hundred years ago nations were still suffering from the fallout of the war which left tens of millions of casualties alongside huge social and economic burden for Europe. Consequently, vast masses of people saw no other alternative than to form a completely new society where modern problems could be dealt with once for all.
Furthermore, the interwar period failed to replace checks and balances of the empires with a credible world order which would sustain political and economic hardships collectively. For example, there was no coordinated response for the challenges caused by Great Depression, in contrast to the calculated efforts to minimize the impact from the Global Financial Crisis. If the present world is filled by exhausting layers of international institutions, the interwar period was filled by absence of them. Both are problematic situations, but abundance of bureaucracy should be a favored above scarcity of bureaucracy.
The Cold War period is also sometimes brought in as a point of comparison to present day world politics. Often this happens in regards to superpower rivalry. The argument goes that China has reached or is soon reaching a position comparable with the Soviet Union who managed to divide the world into two ideological camps. After all, China holds around two thirds of rare earth minerals and leads the technological race in several fields from nanomaterials to advanced radiocommunications to electric batteries. And most strikingly, China’s communist leadership continues to oppose democratic values of the US despite the fall of Soviet bloc and the expansion of global markets.
However, Cold War between the US and the USSR was more than competition of territory and resources. It was competition between two distinct ideological camps: competition of mind and soul of each and every human on Earth. One camp claimed that a competitive market economy forms a basis for prosperity of all, whereas the other claimed that socialist distribution of wealth and goods forms a basis for equal life. The differences between market-relying model of the US and state-controlling model of the USSR need to be emphasized, because they also explain the eventual fall of the socialist bloc. The USSR proved out to be too heavy, too extensive, and simply speaking impossible to sustain in long-term. And while the individualism of the US surely had its pitfalls, the ethos spread rapidly in both democratic and authoritarian countries. Retrospectively, one can easily argue that a more flexible and efficient model won, as one should expect.
Today’s rivalry of the US and China is far from that of the postwar US and the USSR. The US and China are both competing in the same global markets which are shared by almost all countries in the world. They are creating barriers against each other, but they are largely dependent on the access to the global markets. Even in the case of extreme scenario where China stepped to invade Taiwan, China would be able to hold trade relations with most of the BRICS+ countries. The situation would mean an extension of the Western sanctions to include China, rather than an emergence of fundamentally two different spheres of markets. Unlike the USSR, China has no fear of using the global markets to its advantage.
Return of imperialism
Fantasy and sci-fi novels are full of characters who gain power to foresee the future only to lose their minds. In the fourth novel of Dune series, Frank Herbert goes as far as to create a tyrant who rules the universe through near-total stagnation for many thousands of years. All problematic twists and turns of life can be adequately avoided, so everyone can live in equal misery.
Outside fantasy worlds, cycles of industrialization keep turning which keeps everyone guessing the course of the future. The rising tide in the world history is characterized by divergence between and within countries. Against the expectations, the 21st century industries have been inadequate in their provision of better standards of living for the working people, whereas owners of the industries have benefited beyond their needs. The issue has been amplified by severe cuts to international institutions which has reduced their capacity to distribute growth and prosperity. At the same time, domestic policymaking has been caught off-guard by populist movements who have taken advantage of the divergence between regions. Their work has been considerably eased by social media platforms which limit possibilities for nuanced discussion through personalized alghoritms.
One should consider, whether the current models of the West are competitive enough as times have changed. The key strengths of the models should not be undermined from high transparency and accountability to equal basic rights and responsibilities. However, one should still recognize that the current democratic project lacks support particularly among young demographics who are needed to govern in the future. Without any significant reforms, disillusioned generations turn to autocratic leaders who have little respect for law and justice. Therefore, drastic changes will eventually come one way or another.
Historically speaking the endurance of authoritarian regimes should not come as a surprise. Looking back in pre-modern societies, political scientists such as David Stasavage have argued that democratic rule has always been close to as common as autocratic rule. Ideas to govern through accountability emerge in societies where leaders have difficulties to rule and trade without consent of their people. Meanwhile, autocratic rule has prospered when leaders have been able to centralize bureaucracy for their benefit.
As such, democracies should never fall under an assumption that their nations will automatically take the lead, as if there is some inherent structural issue within authoritarian regimes. Democratic ideals are not an inevitable consequence of a market-based society. Over-reliance on nostalgic institutions and technologies will just make sure that global adversaries take advantage out of emerging ideas and technologies. One must move when the train is still in sight to be caught.
saukotuksia 
What’s your view?