Tweet
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3704...WT.svl=theDrum
As a tide of popular dissent tides over Western Europe, many of these countries have in some ways abandoned or temporarily suspended democratic governance.
Take for example, the emergence of Mario Monti to the helm of prime ministership in Italy or Lucas Papademos in Greece. Both technocrats have been charged with enacting a series of harsh and necessary austerity measures to reduce public debt levels and avoiding economic collapse in their respective countries.
But few have raised the prospect of a lack of accountability so far. Neither Papademos nor Monti were elected by popular mandate by the citizens they represent. In fact under the leadership of George Papandreou, a referendum to decide whether Greece should retain the Euro as its currency was abandoned after opposition within his own cabinet. The elites of Greece had decided in this case that its citizens could not be trusted to make the right 'economic decision' which begs the question, who's democracy?
The measures enacted were designed ostensibly to calm international bond markets, yet it is clear that they came at a price: the price of abandoning inconvenient and integral elements of democracy. Take Italy's new cabinet for example, there isn't a single representative from Italy's popularly elected parties. Technocrats may just be what Europe needs amidst this financial turmoil, but if they do succeed it will set poor precedent for liberal democracies. Students across Italian campuses are rioting against the proposed measures with signs like "Who voted for you Monti?"
There is a level of hypocrisy to Western government support for democracy in the Arab world when European leaders bypass the rules and constraints of democracy when times get tough. If abandoning elements of democracy, whether explicitly or implicitly is 'necessary' for economic reasons, why maintain a system that seems to be holding us back? That argument sounds familiar. Oh that's right, the Communist Party in China insists implementing democratic reforms too early could hurt China's economic growth.
This suggests that the only reasons Western liberal capitalist economies cling on to democracy is because it was previously seen as part and parcel of the package. Yet, China and other countries like Singapore have shown that economic growth and capitalism can be embraced without adopting democratic forms of governance. Could Greece and Italy and perhaps other European countries be moving towards such a path? Unlikely as it may be, the adopting of undemocratic forms of governance and principles sets bad precedent and has the capacity to hurt democratisation movements in the developing world. For now, we can only hope that these technocrats fix their broken economies before it is too late. If they fail, the end of the Euro-zone could be closer and Greeks and Italians will have sacrificed their democratic rights for nothing.
Nowhere are the inconveniences of democracy more apparent than in the US political system. Partisanship has reached its climax and the legislative agenda is at a gridlock. The Super-committee charged with trying to come to a deal between the two parties has failed. There is little hope of a turnaround in such a broken political system. Fitch, the credit rating agency changed its outlook on long-term US debt from AAA stable to negative. The signs are much more worrying than Europe. At least in the former, ineffective bureaucracies are being toppled; from Italy and Greece's move to embracing technocrats to negotiate their countries through the tough times ahead to Spain's newly-elected government that received a thumping majority to implement tough economic reforms. The US political system is much more complicated anyhow, and a new government could not be formed overnight as in Italy and Greece. As deficits have now passed the $15 trillion mark in the US, austerity measures required to cut public debt will need to be even harsher than when the Simpson-Bowles Commission had proposed reforms to deal with the current fiscal situation. Either way, America's failure to reach a bi-partisan consensus means the only option it has now is to bypass democratic constraints and adopt serious economic reform before its economy collapses.
Democracy stands in the way of serious reform in many European countries and America, but ask yourself: is abandoning democratic principles and values the only way forward? And what precedent does this set for dealing with future turmoils, be it economic or otherwise?
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
This bloke makes some very interesting points, especially about accountability and precedents. Europe to take accountability for living beyond their means which is why they are now implementing austerity measures. America is simply corrupt to it's core and imo too far down the track and too stupid to save itself. The failure of the super committee is just the latest example of the intractability within their political system. I totally agree with the author that the danger here is the precedent set by the appointing rather than electing, the bypassing of democracy, in times of trouble.
A case in point is the Qantas lock that happened here. The Government did not act unilaterally. It allowed the Fair Work process to play out and that imo was a very smart move. Acting unilaterally would have set a precedent for future governments to take similar action in times of industrial trouble and I know how the Libs would love that.
Democracy is a concept being corrupted imo. It's the wool being pulled over people's eyes to give them comfort and the illusion they have a say in their future when in fact they don't.
Chook.
As a tide of popular dissent tides over Western Europe, many of these countries have in some ways abandoned or temporarily suspended democratic governance.
Take for example, the emergence of Mario Monti to the helm of prime ministership in Italy or Lucas Papademos in Greece. Both technocrats have been charged with enacting a series of harsh and necessary austerity measures to reduce public debt levels and avoiding economic collapse in their respective countries.
But few have raised the prospect of a lack of accountability so far. Neither Papademos nor Monti were elected by popular mandate by the citizens they represent. In fact under the leadership of George Papandreou, a referendum to decide whether Greece should retain the Euro as its currency was abandoned after opposition within his own cabinet. The elites of Greece had decided in this case that its citizens could not be trusted to make the right 'economic decision' which begs the question, who's democracy?
The measures enacted were designed ostensibly to calm international bond markets, yet it is clear that they came at a price: the price of abandoning inconvenient and integral elements of democracy. Take Italy's new cabinet for example, there isn't a single representative from Italy's popularly elected parties. Technocrats may just be what Europe needs amidst this financial turmoil, but if they do succeed it will set poor precedent for liberal democracies. Students across Italian campuses are rioting against the proposed measures with signs like "Who voted for you Monti?"
There is a level of hypocrisy to Western government support for democracy in the Arab world when European leaders bypass the rules and constraints of democracy when times get tough. If abandoning elements of democracy, whether explicitly or implicitly is 'necessary' for economic reasons, why maintain a system that seems to be holding us back? That argument sounds familiar. Oh that's right, the Communist Party in China insists implementing democratic reforms too early could hurt China's economic growth.
This suggests that the only reasons Western liberal capitalist economies cling on to democracy is because it was previously seen as part and parcel of the package. Yet, China and other countries like Singapore have shown that economic growth and capitalism can be embraced without adopting democratic forms of governance. Could Greece and Italy and perhaps other European countries be moving towards such a path? Unlikely as it may be, the adopting of undemocratic forms of governance and principles sets bad precedent and has the capacity to hurt democratisation movements in the developing world. For now, we can only hope that these technocrats fix their broken economies before it is too late. If they fail, the end of the Euro-zone could be closer and Greeks and Italians will have sacrificed their democratic rights for nothing.
Nowhere are the inconveniences of democracy more apparent than in the US political system. Partisanship has reached its climax and the legislative agenda is at a gridlock. The Super-committee charged with trying to come to a deal between the two parties has failed. There is little hope of a turnaround in such a broken political system. Fitch, the credit rating agency changed its outlook on long-term US debt from AAA stable to negative. The signs are much more worrying than Europe. At least in the former, ineffective bureaucracies are being toppled; from Italy and Greece's move to embracing technocrats to negotiate their countries through the tough times ahead to Spain's newly-elected government that received a thumping majority to implement tough economic reforms. The US political system is much more complicated anyhow, and a new government could not be formed overnight as in Italy and Greece. As deficits have now passed the $15 trillion mark in the US, austerity measures required to cut public debt will need to be even harsher than when the Simpson-Bowles Commission had proposed reforms to deal with the current fiscal situation. Either way, America's failure to reach a bi-partisan consensus means the only option it has now is to bypass democratic constraints and adopt serious economic reform before its economy collapses.
Democracy stands in the way of serious reform in many European countries and America, but ask yourself: is abandoning democratic principles and values the only way forward? And what precedent does this set for dealing with future turmoils, be it economic or otherwise?
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
This bloke makes some very interesting points, especially about accountability and precedents. Europe to take accountability for living beyond their means which is why they are now implementing austerity measures. America is simply corrupt to it's core and imo too far down the track and too stupid to save itself. The failure of the super committee is just the latest example of the intractability within their political system. I totally agree with the author that the danger here is the precedent set by the appointing rather than electing, the bypassing of democracy, in times of trouble.
A case in point is the Qantas lock that happened here. The Government did not act unilaterally. It allowed the Fair Work process to play out and that imo was a very smart move. Acting unilaterally would have set a precedent for future governments to take similar action in times of industrial trouble and I know how the Libs would love that.
Democracy is a concept being corrupted imo. It's the wool being pulled over people's eyes to give them comfort and the illusion they have a say in their future when in fact they don't.
Chook.
Comment