full
Episode 321 - Democracy
My thoughts on democracy.
To financially support the Podcast you can make:
- a per-episode donation via Patreon or
- one-off donation via credit card; or
- one-off or regular donations via Paypal or
- if you are into Cryptocurrency you can send Satoshis.
We Livestream every Monday night at 8:00 pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube. Watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.
You can sign up for our newsletter, which links to articles that Trevor has highlighted as potentially interesting and that may be discussed on the podcast. You will get 3 emails per week.
We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can send us a voicemail message at Speakpipe
We have a sister podcast called IFVG Evergreen. It is a collection of evergreen content from the weekly podcast.
Transcripts started in episode 324. You can use this link to search our transcripts. Type "iron fist velvet glove" into the search directory, click on our podcast and then do a word search. It even has a player which will play the relevant section. It is incredibly quick.
Transcript
Well, hello there, dear listener.
Speaker:This is the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast, episode 321.
Speaker:Normally, we're a panel discussion where we talk about...
Speaker:News and politics and sex and religion and the events that have taken place
Speaker:in the previous weeks and we head down various rabbit holes but I decided
Speaker:a while ago that I needed to mix it up a bit and every second week do a
Speaker:little monologue where I talk about a topic of interest and it's proven to
Speaker:be harder than I thought it would be.
Speaker:It's not easy just to sit on your own and just rant about
Speaker:things and keep it interesting.
Speaker:And anyway, I'm going to give it a crack on this occasion.
Speaker:See how we go.
Speaker:This is actually take two because I did one and then for some reason the power
Speaker:went out in this house and tripped and I kept most of my recording but it, it
Speaker:totally threw me off and I thought, oh.
Speaker:Wasn't happy with it.
Speaker:So I'm starting again anyway.
Speaker:There we go.
Speaker:We're going to talk about democracy and power and some ideas relating
Speaker:to that and well, the reason why is because Number one, I saw an article
Speaker:in the Rationalist magazine called The Rationale, I think it's called.
Speaker:It was by Carrick Ryan in defense of democracy And he wrote a few things
Speaker:which I just sort of have problems with.
Speaker:And also just recently the USA has conducted a Summit for Democracy, which I
Speaker:think is the height of hypocrisy myself.
Speaker:And I think what annoyed me in Carrick's article was to do with terminology
Speaker:and And the idea that we get confused between democracy and capitalism and
Speaker:market economies and the benefits that flow from one, assuming that they...
Speaker:are not necessarily tied in with the other.
Speaker:So, so what I'll do, in my first one I really gave a blow by blow
Speaker:description of Carrick's essay and I'm not going to do that this time.
Speaker:I'm just going to tell you what the general ideas were and just deal with
Speaker:them, try and make it more interesting.
Speaker:So here we go.
Speaker:So in his essay he says, he said, basically, democracy leads to countries
Speaker:that are better places to live in.
Speaker:This is because they have growing economies, which grow
Speaker:because of creative destruction.
Speaker:In democracies, innovation forces power structure, adaption.
Speaker:But in non democratic countries, the powerful are able to suppress,
Speaker:sort of, newcomers, challenges.
Speaker:Just look at history.
Speaker:The more democratic a state, the more successful it is.
Speaker:And democracies give us individual freedom, which other systems don't allow.
Speaker:And our democracies are not perfect, but rather than abandon democracy as an
Speaker:ideology, we should fight to improve it.
Speaker:I think that's a fair summary of, of what the article said.
Speaker:Now, what I want to say in, in my response and talking about democracy
Speaker:is that democracy is a relatively small factor in determining the
Speaker:success or failure of many countries.
Speaker:You've got to remember, most countries are relatively small and when a big player, a
Speaker:big bully, wants to bully them, they can.
Speaker:And it's not really going to matter whether they're a democracy or not.
Speaker:We live in the age of the American empire, and in my view, if you get in the road of
Speaker:American self interest, you're stuffed.
Speaker:No matter how democratic you are.
Speaker:On the other hand, if you can aid American self interest, you'll thrive
Speaker:no matter how authoritarian you are.
Speaker:So, to me, for a lot of players in the world, their success of particularly
Speaker:smaller countries isn't so much whether they are democratic or authoritarian,
Speaker:it's whether they're on the good or bad side of the American empire.
Speaker:Now, when I refer to American self interest, I mean the American military
Speaker:industrial complex, you know, the oligarchy that's running the place.
Speaker:So I think it's misleading to connect democracy with capitalism,
Speaker:prosperity, innovation, market economies, personal freedom, health
Speaker:and happiness, as if these things are all linked by some rule of nature.
Speaker:They all come hand in hand.
Speaker:So, it sort of annoyed me that the Rationalists published this essay.
Speaker:I mean, it not annoyed me.
Speaker:I mean, it's good that essays are published, and I
Speaker:guess this is my response.
Speaker:And, and I know that there's a certain view around the world
Speaker:that, you know, a guy like Steven Pinker, that everything's okay.
Speaker:Western and
Speaker:will continue to do so, provided we keep them in good shape.
Speaker:And...
Speaker:I really think rational Australians and others need to just sort of
Speaker:carefully look at that story and see if it's really true or not.
Speaker:So, how power truly operates in the world, I don't think is how it
Speaker:was painted in Carrick's article.
Speaker:So, as I said, the truth is that traditionally powerful countries,
Speaker:for me, they have exploited either other smaller countries, or their
Speaker:own resources, or their own working class, or the world financial system.
Speaker:And the opportunities for further exploitation have run out,
Speaker:and a reckoning is imminent.
Speaker:Capitalism requires growth, and those sorts of fake growth options have run out.
Speaker:So, I agree with Carrick that democracy is in trouble.
Speaker:I agree.
Speaker:I think to rescue it, we need to understand why it's in decline.
Speaker:And a book by Wendy Brown, and the title of the book is...
Speaker:In the ruins of neoliberalism, the rise of anti democratic politics in the West.
Speaker:And, according to Wendy, we can blame neoliberalism, so she says that
Speaker:neoliberalism was a political and moral project that put individual
Speaker:liberty above all else and it demonised democracy because it demonised Any
Speaker:idea of the state having the authority to interfere in individuals lives.
Speaker:So, neoliberalism pooh poohed the state, the commons, the social good, elevated
Speaker:the individual as the primary concern.
Speaker:And really, from a neoliberal point of view, democracy is a bit dangerous.
Speaker:It can allow the majority to limit the freedom of an individual.
Speaker:If enough people vote for it, and from a neo liberal point of view,
Speaker:they would rather personal freedom and would, and would put up with an
Speaker:authoritarian, undemocratic government if it were leaving individuals
Speaker:alone to do whatever they wanted to.
Speaker:That would be the sort of neo liberal approach, and that has permeated
Speaker:our culture, and that erosion of the common good in society.
Speaker:The elevation of the individual has sowed the seeds of doubt for democracy.
Speaker:That's her analysis, and I tend to agree with it.
Speaker:So, if we want to fix the decline in democracy, We're going to need
Speaker:to restore the social, the commons, the idea of society, alright.
Speaker:So, just a few introductory ideas on democracy and its
Speaker:place in the scheme of things.
Speaker:What is democracy?
Speaker:Essentially, power to the people, where everybody's treated equally.
Speaker:They get a vote and a say in how the society operates, and it's
Speaker:not dictated to them by a small clique of unaccountable people.
Speaker:So, a small clique of people running a place is an oligarchy.
Speaker:If they've got lots of money, which is normally the case, it's a plutocracy.
Speaker:You could have an aristocracy, where it's, you know, kings and queens, where
Speaker:it occurs via hereditary sort of means.
Speaker:And the other options would be sort of tyrannies and dictatorships,
Speaker:and interesting, Plato, the Greek philosopher, uh, ranked sort of oligarch
Speaker:and plutocracies and, and aristocracies as preferable to democracies, and
Speaker:only just above, and ranked democracy only just above sort of a tyranny.
Speaker:So, that was his view of the best ways of operating a society.
Speaker:So, the other idea we need to get across is that, you know, authoritarian states
Speaker:can, can conduct liberal societies, where they don't care what you do, get
Speaker:divorced, gay people can marry, have abortions, you know, do whatever you like.
Speaker:It's possible for an unelected government.
Speaker:authoritarian ruling group or person to, to have a fairly liberal
Speaker:interpretation of individual preferences and just that you can't vote them out.
Speaker:You know, it, it doesn't have to go hand in hand.
Speaker:It often does, but it doesn't have to.
Speaker:The other thing is just thinking about capitalism and market economies, you know,
Speaker:they're different things and authoritarian regimes can operate not only market
Speaker:economies, but also capitalist economies.
Speaker:I mean, if you look at modern day China, there's a lot of people getting very rich.
Speaker:Running capitalist enterprises.
Speaker:And capitalism, you have to understand, is quite different to a market economy.
Speaker:So, people, people tend to think, Oh, you can't have socialism or telling
Speaker:people what to do in terms of a command economy and how many loaves of bread
Speaker:to bake and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker:You know, that's different.
Speaker:A command economy where the central government body tells people what
Speaker:to do and how often to do it.
Speaker:It's a sort of a command economy versus a market economy where
Speaker:the market through the forces of supply and demand works things out.
Speaker:So you can have an authoritarian regime that runs a market economy.
Speaker:Capitalism is really a recent invention.
Speaker:It's only occurred in the last, you know, 400 years or so with the,
Speaker:you know, industrial revolution.
Speaker:So, we're, we're basically individuals were able to accumulate such wealth
Speaker:that they could live off the proceeds.
Speaker:So, most people who consider themselves capitalists are not capitalists.
Speaker:Even if you own a small business, if you're working in it every day
Speaker:because you have to, you're just another wage slave like the rest of us.
Speaker:It's just that you've got more pressure and accounting
Speaker:problems than the rest of us.
Speaker:You're not a capitalist.
Speaker:You're a believer in a market economy, but you're not actually
Speaker:a practicing capitalist.
Speaker:Unless you've accumulated such wealth, you don't have to work at all.
Speaker:All right, so enough of the sort of definition sort of things.
Speaker:What does Carrick say in the article?
Speaker:He says, well, democracy leads to countries that are
Speaker:better places to live in.
Speaker:And in support of that argument, he said, what did he say?
Speaker:He said, look at the, there's an index he came across, which was,
Speaker:let me just get it straight here.
Speaker:The Human Development Index is a score given to nations based on a number
Speaker:of variables such as life expectancy, education and per capita income.
Speaker:And Carrick says that in the top 30, all but one, Hong Kong, is a democracy.
Speaker:And he says, is it just pure coincidence, or not?
Speaker:And essentially he goes on to say that, well, democracies...
Speaker:allow for innovation.
Speaker:And it's because of that innovation that their economies grow
Speaker:and that they are successful.
Speaker:So it's no coincidence that the top third democracies, it's because
Speaker:democracies lead to innovation, which leads to growth of economies.
Speaker:Just want to make the point that really a lot of countries in the top
Speaker:30 would be doing very well because of circumstances beyond just their,
Speaker:the fact that they're a democracy.
Speaker:I mean, if you're a former colonial power and you've accumulated massive
Speaker:wealth over hundreds of years from, from extracting wealth from the
Speaker:colonies, And you've then reinvested that into modern day enterprises.
Speaker:You know, that, that can have a much more to do with why you're in the top 30 than
Speaker:the fact that you're running a democracy.
Speaker:That sort of build up of wealth through colonisation that you
Speaker:continue to live off is a huge factor.
Speaker:It might also be that the country...
Speaker:It just has itself vast resources per head of population, e.
Speaker:g.
Speaker:Australia or e.
Speaker:g.
Speaker:the Arab oil states.
Speaker:And there are other factors at play.
Speaker:If you look at that same index and you say, well, who were the big
Speaker:improvers in the last five years?
Speaker:You can actually...
Speaker:Play around with the figures and put in a spreadsheet and run them around, and
Speaker:which ones have moved up a lot of places.
Speaker:And in the last five years, guess what?
Speaker:The biggest improver, by a significant margin, is China, moved up 12 places.
Speaker:And it's not a democracy, apparently.
Speaker:So what does that say then?
Speaker:If your argument is, look at the Human Development Index, and
Speaker:the top 30 are all democracies, but the biggest improver is...
Speaker:Is not a democracy?
Speaker:What does that say about how the world is operating now?
Speaker:Also, if you're looking at the, at the top 10 improvers, China, Dominican
Speaker:Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Thailand, Maldives, Bangladesh,
Speaker:Ireland, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Georgia.
Speaker:And I'll just tell you whether they are democracies or not.
Speaker:And in that same order, China, authoritarian.
Speaker:Dominican Republic, Flawed Democracy, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hybrid,
Speaker:Thailand, Flawed Democracy, Maldives, I couldn't see what the information
Speaker:was, Bangladesh, Hybrid, Ireland, Full Democracy, Hong Kong, Hybrid, Kazakhstan,
Speaker:Authoritarian, Georgia, Hybrid.
Speaker:So in the top 10 improvers, the only one that was a full democracy was
Speaker:Ireland for the last five years.
Speaker:So, What does that say about whether you need to be a
Speaker:democracy, a successful country.
Speaker:Maybe other things are at play here.
Speaker:So my argument would be that for a lot of countries who are doing well,
Speaker:It's because of historical factors that they are continuing to benefit
Speaker:from, and if you look at countries that are doing poorly, it may not be
Speaker:because they're a democracy or not.
Speaker:It could be other factors involved that means life's not
Speaker:so great in those countries.
Speaker:And I looked at who's doing worse, who's the worst performers in this
Speaker:democracy, in this sort of development.
Speaker:When I came out with the figures, the worst performer was the Marshall
Speaker:Islands, but that was because it didn't have figures previously, so it
Speaker:was like a not applicable type thing.
Speaker:The worst performer by far, dropped 44 places in five years, was Venezuela.
Speaker:And then the second worst was Yemen, and then East Timor.
Speaker:Denmark, Brunei, Barbados, Lebanon, Dominica, and Palestine.
Speaker:When you look at those, do you think, yeah, maybe there
Speaker:might be other factors beyond?
Speaker:Democracy at play here.
Speaker:And Venezuela is an interesting classic example.
Speaker:The worst performer of the lot.
Speaker:And, and really, if you look at Venezuela and where it appears on democracy
Speaker:indexes, you'll often see it appears as a terrible authoritarian state.
Speaker:But when you read other material, you would say to yourself,
Speaker:well, it's actually a democracy.
Speaker:So we've mentioned it before in the podcast, but Jimmy Carter, former
Speaker:president of the United States, created the Carter Foundation.
Speaker:They go around the world looking at elections in places like Venezuela
Speaker:and send independent people to the voting booths, looking around,
Speaker:checking, reporting back on whether the systems in place are truly
Speaker:democratic or whether the fix is on.
Speaker:So, when Hugo Chavez was elected as the president of Venezuela, he of course was
Speaker:a socialist, the Jimmy Carter said, of the 92 elections that we've monitored,
Speaker:I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.
Speaker:By way of contrast, the US election system, with its emphasis on
Speaker:campaign money, is one of the worst.
Speaker:Just recently, Venezuela had Some midterm elections.
Speaker:So it wasn't the President, but it was other office bearers and the Carder
Speaker:Centre has not yet reported on that.
Speaker:But I'm keeping my eye out to see what they say.
Speaker:But there was another group called the National Lawyers Guild.
Speaker:Who seem to do a similar thing to what the Carter Foundation is doing.
Speaker:And they sent a delegation of lawyers, of guild members, to Venezuela to monitor
Speaker:the regional elections in November 2021.
Speaker:And in their report, they say they observed a balanced and
Speaker:transparent voting process, which voters expressed confidence in.
Speaker:And it goes on about how many sites they visited.
Speaker:And the communications that they had, and basically a conclusion that
Speaker:they were very satisfied with the conduct of the election in Venezuela.
Speaker:And a conclusion that said, so here, overall we observed a climate
Speaker:of political energy grounded in an understanding that the voting day
Speaker:process, regardless of one's individual political ideology, functions fairly
Speaker:and is received as legitimate.
Speaker:And they then went on to criticise the U.
Speaker:S.
Speaker:for its sanctions that it's operating.
Speaker:So when it comes back to, well, Carrick's argument, if you look at
Speaker:the, uh, development index, the top 30 are democracies, that seems to
Speaker:be more than a coincidence, it's democracies that allow innovation,
Speaker:innovation allows growing economies, well, you've got a dog democracy in
Speaker:Venezuela that's dropped 44 places.
Speaker:The reason is, even if you think it's an authoritarian state, the
Speaker:reason is because of the sanctions.
Speaker:The reason Yemen is the next country is because of a civil war that's
Speaker:been going on in that country with weapons supplied by the US and the
Speaker:UK, other democracies, to the Saudis.
Speaker:So, you know, it's, it's certainly the case that throughout history in
Speaker:Latin America, if we look at Chile.
Speaker:With the Allende government that the US overthrew, even though it was
Speaker:democratically elected, they just didn't like it because it was socialist.
Speaker:Henry Kissinger admitted that, and they were going to do whatever they could
Speaker:to get rid of him, so they installed an authoritarian dictator, General Pinochet.
Speaker:They did similar things in Guatemala, similar things in
Speaker:other Latin American countries.
Speaker:Same thing in Iran, where Mossadegh was duly elected, and Kermit Roosevelt.
Speaker:CIA agent engineered the overthrow of his government.
Speaker:I mean, these are all things that are beyond, these are not disputed.
Speaker:These are admitted by the U.
Speaker:S.
Speaker:in their own documents.
Speaker:This is not fanciful stuff.
Speaker:I mean, is the U.
Speaker:S.
Speaker:a democracy if it runs around the world overthrowing democracies?
Speaker:And installing dictators?
Speaker:What, how does that affect their ranking in the Democracy Index, I wonder?
Speaker:So the other thing that, so of course the sanctions are incredibly difficult
Speaker:on places like Venezuela and Cuba, that these people can't access products that
Speaker:other countries can access, just because the US decides to impose sanctions.
Speaker:The same with Iran.
Speaker:I mean, there was a deal done by Obama in relation to nuclear inspections.
Speaker:It was Trump killed that deal and sanctions reimposed, you know, a lot of
Speaker:the welfare and benefit in a country, if you are cut off from the world economy
Speaker:by the US, you are necessarily going to plummet down the development index,
Speaker:whether you're a democracy or not.
Speaker:And you know, on a, on a sort of a more macro scale, what
Speaker:happened in the seventies and eighties with the International
Speaker:Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Speaker:Both controlled by, by, was that if countries got into trouble with
Speaker:their loans, loans that they probably shouldn't have been given in the
Speaker:first place, but once they got into trouble it opened up, uh, Pandora's
Speaker:box for these poor countries.
Speaker:Essentially the IMF and the World Bank would agree to certain loans on
Speaker:the condition that these countries implement neoliberal policies, which
Speaker:was they had to allow global companies, multinational companies, to come
Speaker:in and have full access to their economies, buy whatever they wanted to.
Speaker:They had to sell their infrastructure, publicly owned,
Speaker:to help pay off their debts.
Speaker:They had to deregulate so that when those companies were in there, they
Speaker:could do the hell, whatever they like.
Speaker:And they had to also, you know, lower tax as well.
Speaker:So they got stuck.
Speaker:And in particular, they were not allowed to impose their own regime of tariffs.
Speaker:Uh, to protect any industries and what that means is that these countries
Speaker:are perpetually locked into poor, low value agricultural production.
Speaker:And it's very difficult for them to develop a manufacturing
Speaker:base because manufacturing needs protection in the early days.
Speaker:If you decide you're going to create a car manufacturing
Speaker:industry or something of that like.
Speaker:You'll never get it off the ground while other countries are allowed to bring in
Speaker:their vehicles because the local company necessarily needs time to get up to speed.
Speaker:So typically what you would do, if you could, is put barriers and tariffs and
Speaker:protections in place to give your own companies some assistance and a leg up.
Speaker:And they just weren't allowed to do that under these rules
Speaker:by the IMF and the World Bank.
Speaker:So they're stuck in this position and can't develop those industries.
Speaker:Meanwhile, places like America and other countries America in particular, when
Speaker:it first kicked off, instituted those sorts of tariffs and protected its
Speaker:industries so that they could be created.
Speaker:And once they were, then they were happy to be opened up.
Speaker:But it's, it's terribly unfair on these countries that they're locked into.
Speaker:Oh, well you provide the agriculture for the world, we provide the high
Speaker:tech and the services in the West.
Speaker:Just a shame that the high tech and the services are the big paying ones.
Speaker:And Germany and Europe will provide some manufacturing as well.
Speaker:I mean, it's, it's very difficult for them.
Speaker:So, they're locked into things.
Speaker:and systems that are operating sort of a power imbalance that is operating
Speaker:irrespective of whether they are a democracy or an authoritarian regime.
Speaker:The most important thing is, are they being bullied by larger forces?
Speaker:And that's what's often occurring to keep these countries down out of the
Speaker:top 30 in terms of development index.
Speaker:So what else did Carrick say in, oh, innovation?
Speaker:Actually, let me go right back to the beginning.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:He says that in democracies, innovation forces power structure adaption.
Speaker:So, where there's innovation in democracies, existing
Speaker:players have to adapt.
Speaker:But he says in non democratic countries, the powerful are
Speaker:able to suppress the challenges.
Speaker:And, and there was a little bit there about, also, the propensity of
Speaker:democracies to produce innovation.
Speaker:Now, when it comes to producing innovation out of different systems.
Speaker:There's no reason why authoritarian regimes can't produce innovation.
Speaker:And there's a bit of a myth that a lot of innovation comes from
Speaker:the private capitalist sector.
Speaker:And just to sort of expose that myth, if you like, there is an
Speaker:economist, Mariana Mazzucato.
Speaker:She made a list of 12 key technologies that make smartphones work.
Speaker:So you've got on the hardware side, you've got tiny microprocessors, memory
Speaker:chips, solid state hard drives, liquid crystal displays, lithium based batteries.
Speaker:That's hardware.
Speaker:Then you've got networks and software.
Speaker:So you've got the Fast Fourier Transform Algorithms.
Speaker:You've got the internet.
Speaker:You've got HTTP and HTML.
Speaker:You've got cellular networks.
Speaker:Global Positioning Systems, or GPS.
Speaker:You've got the touchscreen, and you've got Siri.
Speaker:So that's 12 pieces of key technologies that are part of the smartphone,
Speaker:and most people would think, wasn't it amazing that Apple was able
Speaker:to invent all of those things?
Speaker:And when Mariana Mazzucato assembled this list of technologies and reviewed their
Speaker:history, she found something striking.
Speaker:The, uh, foundational figure in the development of the iPhone wasn't
Speaker:Steve Jobs, it was Uncle Sam.
Speaker:Every single one of these 12 technologies was supported in
Speaker:significant ways by governments, often the American government.
Speaker:So, she goes on to lit where the origins are of these various technologies.
Speaker:Often they came out of the military, often they came out of, sort of,
Speaker:government funded universities.
Speaker:Good on Apple and Jobs for putting it all together and, you
Speaker:know, packaging it attractively.
Speaker:But, you know, this did not come from the private sector, those 12 inventions.
Speaker:It came out of the public sector.
Speaker:And so one could argue when it comes to innovation based on that example, that
Speaker:perhaps an authoritarian regime is more likely to have a A larger, non private
Speaker:sector, and potentially, potentially, more likely to produce innovation.
Speaker:I mean, modern companies today don't have the money for innovation spends.
Speaker:They just like to steal and copy off each other, basically.
Speaker:Anyway, so that was innovation, and also, one of the other
Speaker:things that happens is, I mean...
Speaker:Just thinking of wartime, for example.
Speaker:I mean, were the Russian and German scientists at the cutting edge?
Speaker:Even though they were part of authoritarian regimes?
Speaker:Um, I think we could say yes.
Speaker:Did the Soviets put a man into orbit first?
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:I mean, this came out of authoritarian regimes.
Speaker:The other thing that happens...
Speaker:If you've got an innovation in business today, in a western liberal capitalist
Speaker:democracy, what you'll find is that big players put up barriers to entry to
Speaker:stop smaller players coming in, even if they've got a slightly better product.
Speaker:If that doesn't work, they'll buy up the smaller new player and Either
Speaker:discard the innovation and thereby preserving their existing product.
Speaker:They'll utilise it, but they'll charge monopoly prices, wiping out the economic
Speaker:benefit for you and me, and keeping the economic benefit for themselves.
Speaker:So, you've only got to look at inequality graphs to see that even if innovation
Speaker:Actually transfers through to product.
Speaker:It's not, it's not so much the country's experience, the economic
Speaker:growth as the private enterprises are.
Speaker:It's probably shifting the profits offshore as a result anyway.
Speaker:So it's, it's not the case that innovation is so readily accepted in,
Speaker:in democratic capitalist societies.
Speaker:They have enormous, you know, power comes in different forms.
Speaker:It's not just democratic voting power, it's size.
Speaker:And, and, and there's a huge advantage for big existing players in any industry.
Speaker:It's very difficult for small ones to, to crack through.
Speaker:Alright, what else is going on is, what else did he say in his article
Speaker:before I just move on from that?
Speaker:I think that was the main part that I wanted to get through from that.
Speaker:So, just in terms of the US just recently convened, this happened
Speaker:on December 9th and 10th, 2021.
Speaker:The US convened a virtual Summit for Democracy, the first of its
Speaker:kind in what the State Department hopes to make an annual event.
Speaker:A summit focused on challenges and opportunities facing democracies.
Speaker:Provided a platform for leaders to announce both individual and collective
Speaker:commitments, reforms, uh, reforms and initiatives to defend democracy
Speaker:and human rights at home and abroad.
Speaker:And representatives from 110 governments were invited by the USA.
Speaker:They didn't invite Russia.
Speaker:Russia and China weren't happy about that.
Speaker:Um, spanning the globe, many other countries invited can hardly
Speaker:be classified as democratic.
Speaker:From Apartheid Israel to Brazil, also invited.
Speaker:Was the Venezuelan opposition activist, Juan Guaido, who was declared by the
Speaker:United States to be the interim president of Venezuela, at a democracy summit.
Speaker:Nearly three years later, Guaido is still considered the interim
Speaker:leader of the country by the US and its allies in the region, despite
Speaker:a failed attempt at a military coup, his coalition falling apart.
Speaker:And having never participated in a presidential election.
Speaker:That's who the US invited to its Democracy Summit.
Speaker:So, beyond the list of attendees that were invited, you could ask the US itself.
Speaker:Is it a bit of a people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing
Speaker:stones type of situation?
Speaker:So, maybe the US should have used the time and effort to look at its own system.
Speaker:So, this, I'll link to an article, is a peer reviewed Princeton
Speaker:University study from 2014.
Speaker:Entitled, Testing Theories of American Politics, Elites, Interest
Speaker:Groups, and Average Citizens.
Speaker:And what happened was, in Layman's term, they looked at policies and
Speaker:whether they came to fruition as actual law, and they looked at whether those
Speaker:policies were favoured by rich people or poor people, or by interest groups.
Speaker:In layman's terms, the policy preferences of average citizens have almost no
Speaker:bearing on the likelihood of a policy being adopted by the government.
Speaker:By contrast, the preferences of economic elites is highly correlated with the
Speaker:likelihood of a policy being adopted.
Speaker:And the study stated, The central point that emerges from our research is that
Speaker:economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have
Speaker:substantial independent impacts on U.
Speaker:S.
Speaker:government policy.
Speaker:While mass based interest groups and average citizens have little
Speaker:or no independent influence.
Speaker:So, that looks like an oligarchy, and you have to question whether the U.
Speaker:S.
Speaker:is actually a democracy if its citizens get little or no say in government policy.
Speaker:And just the other metric was only 66 percent of, uh, Americans actually vote.
Speaker:And also at the Democracy Summit, the very first event at the Summit for Democracy
Speaker:was Media freedom and sustainability.
Speaker:The bitter irony of the United States hosting a panel on media
Speaker:freedom is not lost on many in the international community.
Speaker:Who have expressed alarm over the U.
Speaker:S.
Speaker:prosecution of Julian Assange for the crime of journalism that exposed the
Speaker:war crimes of the American Empire.
Speaker:So, the first event at the Democracy Summit was about media freedom
Speaker:and sustainability at almost the exact same time where Julian
Speaker:Assange had lost recent appeal.
Speaker:A bit more on this thing.
Speaker:Talks about US interference.
Speaker:I won't talk about that anymore.
Speaker:There's a couple of articles in the John Menehue blog, and from the first article,
Speaker:the US president has urged the free world to guard against authoritarian threats to
Speaker:democracy, ignoring America's own history.
Speaker:As he promised in the election, US President Joe Biden held a
Speaker:virtual summit for democracy.
Speaker:America is back, he told the world.
Speaker:Again, mentions Russia and China weren't invited.
Speaker:Not invited of course were Russia, China and North Korea.
Speaker:Invited were South Korea and Taiwan, a democracy which is not a separate country.
Speaker:Um, not included were Donald Trump's friends in the House of Saud, nor
Speaker:Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, or Yemen.
Speaker:Latin American countries whose democracies produce results
Speaker:the US doesn't like were out.
Speaker:So they didn't make the cut.
Speaker:That was Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua.
Speaker:And of course, Venezuela, and so were several Middle Eastern states,
Speaker:Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Jordan.
Speaker:Turkey, Hungary and Belarus were out, Poland was in, and there
Speaker:was a confusing list from Africa.
Speaker:For Biden, the simple choice was between democracy and authoritarianism, and
Speaker:he could write his own guess, but when he sought to justify it further, the
Speaker:rationale behind his choices got murky.
Speaker:Authoritarian leaders, he announced, are reaching across
Speaker:borders to undermine democracies.
Speaker:From targeting journalists and human rights defenders,
Speaker:to meddling in elections.
Speaker:He refused to allow people he thought as targeting journalists,
Speaker:or who are meddling in elections.
Speaker:No self awareness of what his own government is up to.
Speaker:Ah, dear.
Speaker:Another article from the John Menendee blog.
Speaker:It's not enough to preach Western values.
Speaker:Australia should instead try to understand those who don't agree with us.
Speaker:Western approaches to the world are based on certain premises, which
Speaker:are not shared by everyone else, but which we believe should be.
Speaker:And one of these is democracy.
Speaker:The writer, Kevin Hogue, says, Democracy is one, is the one
Speaker:true universal political system.
Speaker:This is a moral judgment, and one which some claim is the end of evolution.
Speaker:It is preached with the kind of missionary zeal that earlier generations showed in
Speaker:converting the heathen to Christianity.
Speaker:We do not wish to accept that democracy is just as much a matter of faith as
Speaker:belief in Christianity, Islam, Communism or any other religion or ideology.
Speaker:However, there is no scientific proof that it is any different.
Speaker:Both democracies and autocracies have been successful and have been failures.
Speaker:He says some claim that democracy promotes economic development.
Speaker:Or even that it is necessary, but there is no evidence to support this view.
Speaker:Two of the most dramatic economic miracles are the Magi Japan and China under Deng.
Speaker:We also tend to practice it more than preach it.
Speaker:So, that was that article, and...
Speaker:Speeches on Australian foreign policy tend to be bombastic and often demand
Speaker:the right to run our country as we see fit, while denying the right of others
Speaker:to run their country as they see fit.
Speaker:We assume that there is something wrong with a country that chooses not
Speaker:to be democratic as we practice it.
Speaker:Even if a majority of its people prefer it that way.
Speaker:Look, I know the plural of anecdote is not data, and, uh, but I certainly,
Speaker:we've had some Chinese homestay boys stay with us over the years, and they had
Speaker:lived in Australia for two, three, four years, and had seen what we were up to.
Speaker:And in my discussions with them, when I said, well, you know, do
Speaker:you wish that you had a similar democratic electoral system in China?
Speaker:And they said, no, I'm quite happy with what they had.
Speaker:Want to join the Communist Party?
Speaker:You could.
Speaker:I mean, there's a deal cut.
Speaker:The deal with the Chinese and their leaders is, if the
Speaker:economy's going okay, then...
Speaker:You can do what you're doing, uh, is essentially it.
Speaker:I mean, they're happy enough, I think, with what is going on,
Speaker:and that is as much a sort of a cultural difference as anything.
Speaker:And, and, you know, do we do anything that different here?
Speaker:I mean, if the economy's booming and everybody's happy in that
Speaker:manner, governments just get re elected anyway, don't they?
Speaker:Before we swap over.
Speaker:So, there is a bit of a imposition of, of a value on other people where, I mean, I
Speaker:obviously want the democracy in Australia.
Speaker:I think it's the best system for us and that's what we're used to and what
Speaker:we want and I think for most people in most countries it would be, but...
Speaker:Different cultures have different priorities and thoughts and are in a
Speaker:different position to what we're in, so you can't always say that, uh, one
Speaker:system is always the best for everybody.
Speaker:We have to at least recognise that and think about it and not treat
Speaker:it as sort of almost a religious tenet that must be applied.
Speaker:So anyway, what's the sort of last comment to make is really on this book by, In the
Speaker:Ruins of Neoliberalism by Wendy Brown.
Speaker:I agree with.
Speaker:Carrick, that our democracy, uh, is in trouble around the world, and certainly
Speaker:Wendy Brown would agree with that, but her sort of thesis in this book is that,
Speaker:that the architects of neoliberalism, Hayek, Friedman, et cetera, it wasn't
Speaker:just about the deregulation of economies They, they reckon, like Hayek, reckon, uh,
Speaker:identified strong tensions, I'm reading from page 72 here, Hayek identifies strong
Speaker:tensions between liberalism and democracy.
Speaker:Liberalism, he says, is concerned with limiting the coercive
Speaker:powers of all government.
Speaker:While democracy limits government, only according to majority opinion.
Speaker:Liberalism is committed to a particular form of government, while
Speaker:democracy is committed to the people.
Speaker:So, above all, Hayek argues democracy and liberalism have
Speaker:radically different opposites.
Speaker:Democracy's opposite is authoritarianism.
Speaker:Concentrated, but not necessarily unlimited political power.
Speaker:Liberals, uh, liberalism's opposite is totalitarianism.
Speaker:Complete control of every aspect of life.
Speaker:This makes authoritarianism potentially compatible with a liberal society.
Speaker:So, it becomes reasonable for Hayek to join his fellow neoliberals in accepting
Speaker:authoritarians, authoritarians legitimacy.
Speaker:In the transition to liberalism, and that's how they can justify the sort of
Speaker:thing that happened with General Pinochet.
Speaker:So, from the neoliberal point of view, to posing a democratically elected
Speaker:leftist socialist president in Chile.
Speaker:Was the right thing to do, even though it led knowingly
Speaker:to an authoritarian dictator.
Speaker:I mean, they knew what they were getting there, a military
Speaker:dictator in Latin America, come on.
Speaker:But that was acceptable, because for a start the, the company
Speaker:that owned the copper mine would continue to own it, they thought.
Speaker:And, and other sort of individual sort of freedom of business
Speaker:and all the rest of it.
Speaker:would be allowed under the Pinochet government.
Speaker:So, so, so, so, for Wendy Brown, the, the neoliberal experiment, well, it's
Speaker:not an experiment, it's a practice that's going on and is adopted,
Speaker:has elevated the, the paramount importance of individual freedom.
Speaker:And, and really what happened was, There was this amazing alliance has been created
Speaker:with Libertarians, Plutocrats, right wing anarchists, zealous pro lifers,
Speaker:homeschoolers, I mean anti vaxxers, you could add to that as well now.
Speaker:They all want freedom from society's regulations and constraints, and we
Speaker:are continually bombarded with the paramount supremacy of individual
Speaker:freedom, and a downplaying of the role of society, and, and if you're doing
Speaker:that hard enough and often enough, people then come to the view, well, I
Speaker:don't want a democracy if it's going to impinge on my personal freedom.
Speaker:I'll have some other right wing authoritarian regime, unelected,
Speaker:if that's what I need in order to have my personal freedom.
Speaker:And that's her thesis of how we've got there.
Speaker:So, so I thought that was an interesting theory.
Speaker:I think it's probably right.
Speaker:And that's probably me, done and dusted on my thoughts on democracy at this stage.
Speaker:Hope that was an entertaining rant for you, and I'll be
Speaker:back next week with the panel.
Speaker:Bye for now.
