From Ha-Joon Chang in the Guardian this morning:
In particularly difficult economic times, it was even argued, we need to insulate economic policies from politics altogether. Latin American military dictatorships were justified in such terms. The recent imposition of "technocratic" governments, made up of economists and bankers who have not been "tainted" by politics, on Greece and Italy comes from the same intellectual stable.
What free-market economists are not telling us is that the politics they want to get rid of are none other than those of democracy itself. When they say we need to insulate economic policies from politics, they are in effect advocating the castration of democracy.
This is now a recurring theme on this blog. And it's right to say so.
It's another reason why I have said so much about Jersey over the last few days.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
A recurring theme and rightly so, Richard. But let’s be clear here – and it’s why I’d go further than Ha-Joon Chang on this. It’s not simply economists of a neo-liberal bent who are advocating the castration of democracy. There’s a lorry load more people more or less signed up to such a view, not the least being the politicians who support and promote such economic views, or, if they are very cowardly, plead ignorance or disinterest in such matters. Of course, many would loudly plead otherwise but I doubt would raise a finger if (when) the next economic shock hits us and provides another excuse for imposition of a ‘shock doctrine’ that included a suspension of democracy.
Agreed
Democracy went years ago with the conversion to neo-liberalism by the main parties – most of the people using this site and sympathetic to its message have no-one to vote for – disenfranchised, in short.
Rubbish!
If you feel that strongly about it why don’t you stand for Parliament yourself?
Because I am more effective writing this
Sorry Tom, I agree with Simon.
Richard is quite right too. An NGO is far more effective at higlighting issues than a single MP. Particularly an MP tied to amainstream political party!
I agree with Simon. Gerald Celente described the U.S. party system as a two-headed monster. The ‘patrician’ oligarchy run the whole show from behind the scenes. And the same thing has played itself out in most western democracies including the U.K. and Australia.
The process has taken time, but in essence what we have nowadays are political groupings that differ only in style rather than substance or philosophy. You only have to look at the political party strategies. The only argument they seem to make is that “they can manage the country and the economy better than the other side”. Very little is offered in what policies will be implemented and even if they offer to remove or change some odious piece of legislation, they do nothing about it when in office.
It’s a rather sad thing when people say “they’re voting for the lesser of two evils”. Evil is evil as far as I’m concerned.
excellent answer!
But actually my comment was directed at Simon’s “end of democracy” remark — democracy doesn’t come to an end *just because* not enough people agree with you, Simon!