It has been a persistent theme of this blog that the march of neoliberal capitalism has been away from democracy and towards neo-feudalism. The evidence that this is the case is compelling and largely provided within a UK context by the Conservative Parties contempt for almost everything that upholds democratic rights and traditions.
If evidence that this idea that capitalism is to be welcomed but that democracy is a nuisance that can be done without was needed the FT supplies it this morning. Former Prime Minister David Cameron has spoken on the issue, no doubt for handsome reward, saying:
It can be a mistake to push fragile countries into “winner take all” democratic elections, said David Cameron, ahead of a new report that seeks to turn long-held assumptions about foreign interventions “entirely on their head”.
He said that “building the blocks of democracy” was more important than “the act of holding elections themselves”.
Mr Cameron said there was a “total lack of realism” among developed countries and donors when it comes to assisting countries blighted by economic failure and conflict.
As they reported:
Mr Cameron instead called for international players to spend more time and effort on the political settlement, power-sharing, and dealing with the fundamental conflicts at the heart of each individual country.
“A provisional government is sometimes the better option than rushing to multi-party elections,” he said.
Of course: a puppet is of so much more use to a western power that has imposed regime change than handing back power to the people of a country who have a right to self-determination.
First they came for democracy in vulnerable states.
Next they will come for us.
The intent is all too clear.
Theresa May once said they were the Nasty Party. She understated her case. Cameron is making clear his belief is that any case can have democracy just so long as it does what the West's ruling elite wants. I think the same might be said of his attitude, and that of many on the right, towards the UK.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
A typo:
Conservative Parties -> Party’s
Happy to point out typos. No need to acknowledge or post.
Thanks
Wil try to change but have a weak connection and I do not edit when that’s the case
It usually goes wrong
A counter argument:
Much as I enjoy castigating our former PM as much as the next man, I can’t find much wrong with his statement as presented here.
History suggests that democracy develops naturally and of it’s own accord from economic enfranchisement. The fetishisation of the trappings of democracy (free and fair voting, parliament’s etc) ahead of basic standards of living in the minds of western post-intervention planners is one of the causes of failure of such plans in recent decades, in my opinion.
That is not in the slightest how I read this
I read capture, control, and regime control in the interests of those seeking to intervene, as Cameron did
History suggests that democracy develops naturally and of it’s own accord.”
Total nonsense. Tyrrany, Oligarchy and Despotism are historically just as ‘natural.’
And no organization of people develops ‘of its own accord.’ It develops only by the accord, actions and effort of those people. Of course there have always been other contemporary people equally opposed to the emergence of democracy. I will agree that it cannot be externally imposed.
“from economic enfranchisement.”
What does this mean? Economic activity of some sort legitimises or potentiates democracy? Politics is just somehow a by-product of economics? Ridiculous. Just as economics is impossible without people to ‘do it’ so is politics. Democracy is a creation of people as is economics.
“Free and fair voting, parliaments etc” are merely trappings? And somehow are in opposition or an obstruction to ” basic standards of living?” This is a preposterous suggestion.
Free and fair voting is the essence of democrcay not a trapping – as is parliament. And a basic standard of living is a conjugate of democracy and neither a precursor nor a necessary consequence. Sadly governments like our current one are perfectly able to attack the standard of living of their electorate.
I would allow that Cameron probably does not see the massive flaws in his view of democrcay. He probably believes that only ‘markets’ can confer legitimacy on human acticity of any sort. Conservatives simply don’t do or understand democrcay. I found it interesting that Michael Portillo said as much on ‘This week’ a few weeks ago.
…Which isn’t to say David Cameron is anything other than a dangerous neo-liberal shill, btw, or that his interest in the well being of the global poor is any more sincere than his interest in Aston Villa FC.
Cameron’s speciality has always been fake niceness and fake moderation.
He fronts hard right causes and tries to make them seem centre-right or centre. He takes elite interests and tries to make them seem broadly representative. He is a smiling spin-doctor. In the 1980’s this style was once known as “friendly fascism”.
Oh yes
It looks to me like his argument is sliding dangerously towards racist attitudes. “They” are not ready for the sophistications of democracy.
One of the reasons for “countries blighted by economic failure and conflict” is….foreign interventions and “provisional governments” or “puppets” as described above and the resulting neo-colonialism in all its economic, political, cultural and social colours.
A recent book by Jascha Mounk “The People vs. Democracy” argues that liberal democracy is under threat – both its component parts – with the rise of right wing populists, the distrust of politics and politicians and an increasing acceptability among the populous of “strong” leaders untrammelled by parliament or even desiring military rule.
He discusses 3 reasons for this: First, the uneven economic rewards in Western countries over the past few decades, with the majority standing still; second, the development of pluralistic societies instead of the homogenous, monoethnic ones (more apparent than real) in which one group dominated; and thirdly, the way mass communication, once the preserve of the rich or States, is now available to all and although much of that levelling has been good it has also meant that the voice of extremism is no longer marginalised by the establishment.
In many ways, I would argue that in the USA and UK, never mind Hungary, Turkey or Poland, some pretty extreme, and possibly dangerous, individuals are now in charge, riding roughshod over democratic accountability.
A bit more time and investment spent on addressing the deep divisions, inequalities, croneyism, and entrenched beliefs, manipulated by vested interests would have been a good thing in recent years in the UK before inviting a ‘winner takes all’ democratic event. With hindsight, I expect Cameron would agree.
Nicely spotted, Michael.
I guess he might say he’s learnt something, but I doubt it.
There is some sense in what he says. But I’m deeply sceptical about his reasons for saying it.
Democracy is not deliverable at the point of a gun. And it doesn’t develop quickly. See how long it is taking us.
He did give a vote on the EU question that has been dogging his country for years.
You’ve got to give him credit for that.
Adam S says:
“He did give a vote on the EU question that has been dogging his country for years.
You’ve got to give him credit for that.”
I give him no credit for that at all. He based his position on having clawed some concessions from the EU (which were patently value free) then went into an referendum wholly unprepared and completely ignorant of the mood of the country and lost.
Incompetence and complacency earns no credit. (Unless he was a Brexit fifth columnist in which case I take my hat off to him.)
Andy, he got the mood right. The mood was for a referendum to leave (something that had been lingering for years) and that’s what’s happened. That was a democratic step.
Seems you only want ‘democracy’ if the vote goes your way. If it doesn’t it is in your words, ‘lost’ rather than ‘won’, and the question shouldn’t have been asked in the first place.
I guess we have different ideas of democracy.
Democracy is not binding in perpetuity
Nor is the referendum
That’s what annoys those of us who are disenfranchised on this issue now
Sure, it isn’t binding in perpetuity.
I’d think for something like this, revisit it perhaps every 25 years, or even longer. It isn’t the sort of thing that lends itself to chopping and changing with greater frequency.
Even if the decision is disastrous, as it very obviously is?
Adam S says:
“Andy, he got the mood right. The mood was for a referendum to leave (something that had been lingering for years) and that’s what’s happened. That was a democratic step.”
“Seems you only want ‘democracy’ if the vote goes your way.” Nonsense Adam.
Cameron was backing ‘Remain’. Or at least speaking for ‘Remain’. If that’s not what he wanted my fifth column comment applies. He played a blinder.
But, do you think seriously that he threw his job as PM down the toilet on purpose.? Maybe he did he was only ever doing the job for the kudos, he’ll be making more money doing what he’s doing now If that was his motive.
We weren’t discussing which way I wanted the vote to go. I’m in Scotland, I don’t give a toss if England wants to close the Channel and leave Europe cut off. 🙂
but the fact remains that certain instances of imposing democracy on autocratic states has resulted in chaos….
You mean their being autocratic states helped?
“You mean their being autocratic states helped?”
In the case of Iraq, being an autocratic state would have helped considerably in establishing a democratic future. But it would have involved a vry different kind of intervention.
Given that Saddam was and had been for years ‘our man’. We and particularly the US kept him in power. If democracy was the end game it could have been worked towards. Saddam was controlled.
Democracy was never the aim. The US is contemptuous of democracy. The aim was always to control the Middle East for its strategic oil reserves. Why the US tipped him the wink to go into Kuwait is beyond me. The game must have changed. Saddam did what he was told, or allowed to do. That’s how he kept his limited but comfortable position for three decades.
Cameron albeit entirely inadvertently, does have a point.
If the ANC had made sure they got that major ” building block of democracy”: the South African Reserve Bank into State rather than private hands all those years ago instead of being distracted by the baubles of power, we might have seen a different story there . Of course that’s a genuine “building block”: the blocks Cameron was referring to are another kind: the ones used in window dressing.