'The War Against Democracy' - 7 comments
My TV listing magazine declares that, tonight at 11.00 pm on ITV:
Film-maker John Pilger argues that intervention by the United States into the political landscapes of Latin American countries has been conducted with the intention of stifling democracyI wonder how that's going to go. Just on the offchance - the offchance, that is - that it turns out to rest on the fact that Venezuela's President Chávez was re-elected with a higher share of the vote than both George W. Bush and Tony Blair, allow me to inject just one of many possible notes of caution that you're unlikely to hear during its approximate 90 minute running time:
The fashionable concentration on democracy as the main value threatened [by a 'socialist' dictatorship] is not without danger. It is largely responsible for the misleading and unfounded belief that so long as the ultimate source of power is the will of the majority, the power cannot be arbitrary. The false assurance which many people derive from this belief is an important cause of the general unawareness of the danger we face. There is no justification for the belief that so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; the contrast suggested by this statement is false: it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary. Democratic control may prevent power from being arbitrary, but it does not do so by its mere existence. If democracy resolves on a task which necessarily involves the use of power which cannot be guided by fixed rules, it must become arbitrary power.F Hayek, The Road To Serfdom, Chapter 5
*
On second thoughts I don't think this ("Lawrence killer to remain in UK") does demonstrate the current arbitrary use of power here in the UK, but for Shadow ministers to argue that the Human Rights Act that affects us all should be altered on the basis of a single case, on the grounds that it fails to allow the Government to deport a former criminal to - if he has reformed - a life of exile in a country he left 20 years ago, or - if he hasn't - possibly inflict future crimes upon our Italian friends, then this seems a senseless and unreasonable use of Government power in an interconnected world, however (understandably) strong the feelings of the criminal's former victims.
*
PS. This post delayed by 2-3 hours due to Blogger being broken, as usual.
Update (24/08): I didn't manage to complete my response to the comments, this evening. I might be ready by Friday afternoon, though most likely the evening.
Labels: arbitary power, Chavez, Human Right, John Pilger, Latin America, s, von Hayek
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
7 comments so far...
I think it's a shame when Labour commentators are left to quoting Hayek in defence of their arguments. Is this really how far we have been pushed?
Hayek may not be a procedural democrat, fair enough. I would actually describe his philosophy in this area as more republican than democratic anyway, though I'm sure given the chance he would quibble my semantics.
I am a procedural democrat. I don't believe in it because it develops the best results (that's a bonus), but because it's the fairest and most effective way of getting to them. Moreover, I think it's fair enough to say that people should govern; majoritarianism (though not necessarily unlimited) is to my mind a logical conclusion of this; a majority is the best anyone will ever get.
If we measure democracy in a quantitative sense by the amount of limits and checks to which it is subject, or how far those limits are effective in moderating the will of the majority as stated by a popular vote, just how far should those limits go?
When do we reach true democracy, or democracy of an 'acceptable' standard?
To me, these evaluative frameworks are the true arbitrary imposition.
I'm not arguing that democracy should never be subject to constraints; but I would argue that constraints should only go as far as furthering the will of the electorate, and/or forcing consideration of the outcome (so bicameralism, for example, could be but is not necessarily useful).
Basically, those principles are the only exception I can find justification of that people's will, as it stands, should be represented in government.
Governments must always be held to account, but that they are representative is a prior, not a secondary principle.
Chavez, as an example, obviously deserves criticism in that respect. But I'm not not convinced that utility provided by checking his government matches the utility that he and his cabinet ministers provide to the poorest Venezuelans. Thus one should support his government wholeheartedly, but of course not this aspect of it.
Besides, it's hardly Cuba, anyway...
It is true that Chavez needs to be watched, that there are causes of concern.
However, those Decent leftists who continually berate Chavez have one singular problem: their alternative. For the first time for many, many years the Barrios have some degree of self confidence, and the poor feel that they have someone on their side as President. For the first time too people who never had the chance to learn to read and write are given the chance to do so. Without mentioning this social progress and discussing ways to protect and enhance this, one wonders what is the kernel of the Decent left's criticism. Its important to protect this social progress, it cannot be divorced from the debates around democracy and the constitution.
So the Decent left has to look long and hard at the alternative they posit.
Lots of interesting things to talk about, but a couple of things for now... Firstly, I can't see the problem with quoting Hayek. Even the guy in the bookshop thought he was "a bit right-wing", but I've seen nothing other than political/economic liberalism, with hat-tips to some kind of minimum wage, no enthusiasm for laissez-faire per se, not to mention trenchant opposition to nationalism and authoritarianism. Remember that 'The Road to Serfdom' was written before '1984'. The other quick point is about Governments being 'representative'. I can't think, especially after reading Hayek, that this is any more than a fairly feeble protection for the populace against totalitarianism. Imagine a Govt that didn't that didn't adhere to the Rule of Law, behaving arbitrarily, especially one that represented a majority religious/ethnic group: would the minority be safe?
*
I'd like to see a socialist system that didn't go hand-in-hand with autocracy and nationalism. By weakening liberal institutions, the most likely results are that either an economic or a political crisis will cause a collapse, or else repression has to be ramped-up and the country detached from the rest of the World. How many more times do we have to watch this happen?
In Venezuela, Cuba, and so many other countries, the top priority for their governments is to open their economies, cede political power, tackle corruption, and stop blaming the country's problems on internal and external enemies. Only then will their social programmes be tenable, and only then should the international Left offer their support. As usual, the 'Decent Left' reference is a smokescreen used to conceal the accusor's abandonment of their commitment to liberal principles.
As usual, the 'Decent Left' reference is a smokescreen used to conceal the accusor's abandonment of their commitment to liberal principles.
Well, of course!
"In Venezuela, Cuba, and so many other countries, the top priority for their governments is to open their economies,"
Well, firstly there is the liberal institution represented by the right to national self determination, but I'll leave that for now.
The second point that I wish to make is along the lines of an orthodoxy I believe to be questionable. Your proposition above. Why?
What you seem to be saying is that it is impossible to tackle the priorities of the Venezuelan people (for I shall assume, on the basis of giving you the benefit of the doubt, you cede to the point that they should control Venezuela) without allowing multinationals from other states to take control of certain industries.
That's not what Venezuelans believe, because they are democratic socialists who believe that such a route (yes, a liberal one) has failed to deliver the necessary reform towards equity.
I myself am growing increasingly exasperated with the tendency of those on the 'decent left' (on which I believe myself to stand simply by not opposing SWP style rubbish) to equate liberalism with social democracy and democratic socialism; the philosophies on which this party in particular is based.
Liberalism forms an important chunk of social democracy. No scientific politician should automatically discount private actors, for example... and it is liberal strains of thought that lead us to declare the lack of qualitative difference between racial groups, and sexual orientations.
But the sum of the real left is far greater than that part represented by simple liberalism.
Often liberal solutions are just not good enough. freedom of markets is often not an answer. You may disagree, but then you really do end up standing with Thatcher (and Hayek, no doubt). Markets are often good servants, and often cruel masters. limiting their power can often heighten the personal liberty of downtrodden individuals and collectives.
That's why the Labour party exists, and we don't vote for just Liberals and Tories.
It is also why Labour should continue to exist. There already exists a party which is meant to give us liberalism and nothing further (though I would argue that they are only liberal where it hurts poor communities and authoritarian in many other aspects. They may fail orthodox liberalism as Labour fails orthodox socialism). We need a party that offers more than liberalism: justice. That should be Labour.
And it's principles therefore should at least allow solidarity with most aspects of these Bolivarian reforms, even if it does not wish to go as far as actually backing them.
Nationalism in your terms seems like another way of saying self determination wielded in a way which does not submit to the demands of others (rather than necessarily behaving particularly aggressively towards those others; what Chavez has done so far is peanuts compared, say, to Cuba). Besides, nationalism is often progressive where the intentions of outside actors are regressive in character, as seems to be the opinion in many south american countries, after the collapse of neoliberal uber-privatising regimes therein (it doesn't exactly help that many of them only behaved liberally if you happen to be a massive American company as opposed to a poor individual, or a trade union).
"Self determination and social justice for all".
I'm with Tom on the point opening the economy, there really is no reason to consider that opening up the economy is what's needed for Venezuela.
Despite some of the concerns being voiced it's worth bearing in mind that the public sector spending is still only 30% of GDP (source, Page 1), lower than most of Western europe.
More here
Thanks for the comments, guys - will try to either reply here or write a follow-up post this evening.
Post a Comment
<< Home