We read a lot about the decline of democracy. Commentators look at how China can bring half a billion people to prosperity, develop winning industries and build up reserves of dollars and influence, all the while maintaining some social cohesion, albeit at a cost of a million or so Uighurs in concentration camps and a little local difficulty in Hong Kong.
We compare that enviously with the dire straits that American democracy has reached, and the way autocrats have managed to hijack democracies in Hungary, Poland, Italy and even Britain, somehow bringing along a large minority of the population with them.
Look further afield, and Brazil, South Africa, Thailand and other so-called democracies have been laid low. In Russia, the promised renaissance from the fall of communism only led to state capture followed by more autocracy – at which point things seemed to function well again, albeit with horrible corruption.
So have we reached a state where we can no longer even defend Churchill’s limp defence of democracy as the worst form of governance, except for all the others? What is wrong with our democracies, and is there anything that could stop the decline?
Mainly we can see this as a cyclical thing, or as a great race with humanity progressing, but in a rather haphazard way. Institutions develop at one pace, wisdom and education at another, technology at a third. If one gets out of step with the others for a time, democracy becomes more vulnerable than usual until that is fixed, and may well perform worse than the least corrupt forms of autocracy. But over time things get better, even if it needs a war to set things back onto positive paths.
I think that is where we are at the moment in many countries. Technology is marching ahead. Wisdom and education is doing quite well, but not well enough to make all the new technology an unalloyed benefit. Institutions are way behind. Every country has its own story, but currently we are out of balance in many places.
So that makes it worthwhile to explore which institutions are failing and how they might be induced to catch up. Surely that is a better response than trying to stifle the technology?
The US is a wonderful case study for this. We love to blame the current president for all the ills in the US, and to dream that if we get rid of Trump, then everything will be well. But that ignores many realities. Recent presidents, including Trump, have been limited in what they can do (rather than say) to a few executive orders and a free hand on foreign policy. Often, executive orders are limited too, usually to undoing the executive order of a predecessor. Even those are subject to a barrage of attacks in the courts.
The US constitution is a beautiful thing. The statement of goals is wonderful – even if it took a while to realise that women and slaves had rights too. The division of government into executive, legislative and judicial was a work of genius in design and execution. The hierarchy of powers at federal, state and local level is also excellent.
And until recently, the track record has been excellent. There is more than slavery and natural resources and (partially) sitting out European wars behind the powerhouse that the US became. The US is not a simple place to govern. The geography is immense. That and the different waves of immigrants have led to a nation of multiple conflicting cultures. Some of its legacy was poisonous. Yet somehow the place has stayed together and moved forward.
Until now. Since about 1980 the US has gone backwards in most respects. True, it still dominates business, using scale and colleges to lead the internet revolution. But what else? The military still underperforms while its rulers still embark on crazy follies. The debt rises relentlessly; that and persistent deficits lead to a nation with declining share of the world’s assets. Real incomes have stagnated and quality of life worsened, with appalling health, welfare, housing, education and criminal justice outcomes – life expectancy is even going down! Gaping divides persist along gender, racial and geographical lines. The USA usually lags Europe in social progress.
We can’t blame all that on Trump, nor on George W or even Reagan. The real culprit is congress.
Under the constitution, the president sets the tone and leads execution. It is congress that works through issues to come up with smart laws, which the judiciary can then referee. It is a good design, but since 1980 we have almost no meaningful legislation, and what there has been has often not reflected the will of the people or the interests of the nation.
There are countless issues where the law is woefully out of step with public opinion, for example gun control, abortion, parental leave and environmental policy. There are others where the law has not responded to new challenges, for example competition policy, health care needs, welfare, immigration, housing or trade. Congress is even supposed to contribute to security policy, but its only meaningful bill in 20 years was of one sentence giving the president carte blanche after 9/11; finally it started to grow up last year by challenging Saudi Arabia. In other areas, congress passes bills by stealth that benefit only entrenched vested interests, such as the wealthy, unions or traditional industries.
In all of these areas, which, lets face it, amount to a rather full description of public policy, congress has passed virtually no legislation since 1980, and the trend is even worsening, with each successive congress underperforming its predecessor. There are rare glorious exceptions, such as the criminal justice reform bill passed last year, but these are also getting rarer.
One poignant indictment of congress is to compare its effectiveness with the European commission. Now, the US is hard to govern, but Europe is much harder, with its long suspicion and short history of integration and its immature institutions. Yet in many areas Europe is streets ahead – look for example at competition policy or regional policy.
What we are left with is a series of inadequate patches and dangerous power vulnerabilities. The states are largely functional, and can lead federal change, for example with marijuana and hopefully eventually with environmental action. But one result if that is to sharpen the geographical chasm. The president can try to set the law himself by executive order, but that is dangerous and easily reversed. Many issues get resolved by the Supreme Court; that only serves to further politicise that branch and leads to delayed and partial conclusions.
There are even more ridiculous outcomes. Wealthy individuals, such as the Koch brothers or Bill Gates, increasingly define public policy and even its execution. It was weird to read last week of 500 or so CEO’s writing about corporate social responsibility. That is the ultimate symptom of a vacuum of regulation or law reflecting the interests of their staff. Businesses have also led in other areas, for example in moderating the religious extremism of Pence and his ilk.
So far, there is surprisingly little direct action by the most dangerous group of all, the people. We see protests and campaigns, some with a real effect. But I wonder if the breakdown in law making might ultimately portend serious social disruption and rioting. I think it could be the next logical step.
I was going to try to explain how the breaking of congress came about and how it might be put together again. I have some ideas, but I fear congress might be like Humpty Dumpty and beyond repair, at least for another generation. But now that will have to wait until next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment