When the German playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote that “all power comes from the people,” he went on to ask the rather important question: “But where does it go?”
Liberal democracy’s signal achievement in the half-century after World War II was to answer that question in a way that promoted social consensus and solidarity.
Although governments were chosen by majorities of equal citizens, they worked within a constitutional order based on the rule of law, democratic institutions and accepted values and rights. They governed with the consent of a minority that they respected.
By the end of the 1980s, some believed that this system of governance, which engendered economic success and political stability, had won the day against any alternative. Communist and fascist authoritarianism were discredited. A mood of triumphalism set in, breeding complacency.
Things look a lot less rosy for liberal democrats today.
For starters, the boom and bust of the first decade of this century took its toll. So, too, did the encouragement of an unrestrained form of globalization that took little account of the social consequences of lower comparative labor costs in developing countries for workers in developed countries.
Freer trade and more open exchange were not accompanied by labor-market and social-security policies to mitigate their negative effects. Moreover, China, now the world’s largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity, distorted international market rules to its own advantage.
Two other issues further discredited democratic governments. First, social inequity grew alarmingly in many countries, most notably the US, leading citizens to question whether they lived in fair societies.
Second, migration from poorer to richer countries, fueled by poverty and demographic factors, created tensions in developed economies. Living standards were squeezed, and people postponed their hopes for a better quality of life.
Some now see a clash between illiberal democracy and undemocratic liberalism. Elites are thought to want to curb what they see as the irrational and undeliverable hopes of the majority, while the majority fights to overturn the checks and balances that moderate the popular will.
The growing disillusion with democratic government is evident in the rise of leaders such as Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and, of course, US President Donald Trump.
The US president appears reckless in his attitude to the US Constitution, the rule of law, freedom of the press and civil political debate. The US used to be the standard bearer for liberal democracy and human rights, but the Trump administration prefers tough-guy authoritarians to democrats, and even attacks democratic US allies.
Others indulge in their own forms of populism. In Britain, the Conservative Party’s rejection of close ties with Europe is accompanied by threats to assault institutions that have hitherto restrained executive power.
These include Britain’s independent courts and judges, its world-class public-service broadcaster, the BBC, and any civil-society organization likely to disagree with the executive.
There is no need to exaggerate; the world has not written the last act in the history of liberal democracy. Still, there are enough signs of trouble to make sensible Americans and Europeans recall Europe’s slide into tyranny in the 1930s, and to resolve to act now to prevent anything like that from happening again.
While crying wolf is rarely recommended, sometimes there really is a wolf skulking through the woods.
As if the West’s apparent connivance in the destabilization of its own system of governance were not bad enough, liberal democracies also must cope with external threats.
For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin finds it difficult to resist trying to stir up trouble in European democracies, and — despite Trump’s disavowal of the evidence — in the US, too.
By funding nationalist and populist political parties, trying to dissolve the glue of the values that hold the EU together, and employing dark and devious high-tech banditry, Putin relentlessly continues his efforts to alter Europe’s political map.
Putin wants to return Europe to being a continent dominated by spheres of influence rather than self-determination.
However, Russia, a ramshackle state with hydrocarbons and rockets, lacks the economic clout to mount a fundamental assault on liberal-democratic values. So, although the Kremlin’s menacing behavior must be watched and firmly repulsed, the threat it poses seems unlikely to become existential.
China is a different matter. The country’s remarkable and mostly welcome rejuvenation as a major economic power has given it considerable global and regional influence.
The intrinsic weaknesses of China’s flawed system of authoritrian government mean that its communist leaders worry about how to maintain absolute control in the face of technological, demographic and economic change.
The Chinese Communist Party, government and armed forces therefore have been instructed (for example, in the leaked “Communique on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere”) to attack the promotion of Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society and independent journalism.
This offensive also targets any historical scholarship that tries to discover what actually happened in the past, rather than simply accepting the party’s version of events.
Every means is to be used to try to destroy these dangerous tendencies, whether mobilizing the Chinese diaspora through the “united front,” influencing overseas universities or using commercial pressure in order to “create dependencies and induce self-censorship.”
The toughest variant of this approach is known as “wolf diplomacy,” featuring often-bogus promises of trade deals or investment for countries that toe the line. Indeed, China’s efforts have produced the sort of pre-emptive cringing in the West that itself erodes liberal-democratic values.
Some apologists for China’s behavior counsel caution, arguing that past Western failings offset those of the communist regime in Beijing. Their advice that the world must both engage with China and deter its worst behavior might sound balanced and wise.
However, engagement must be on terms that are fair to both sides. Deterrence needs to be real when necessary — at which point the wise apostles of engagement tend to make their excuses and leave. If liberals continue to be so weak-minded, it will be at our own peril.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external relations, is chancellor of the University of Oxford .
Copyright: Project Syndicate
China took advantage of the vacuum left behind when US carriers stayed out of the western Pacific Ocean due to COVID-19 outbreaks on several US Navy warships. The Chinese government is solidifying its hold on artificial islands in the South China Sea by moving in missiles and surveillance equipment, and formalizing its occupation by creating two municipal districts in the region under Hainan Island’s Sansha — Xisha District on Woody Island (Yongxing Island, 永興島) to administer the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島) and Nansha District on Fiery Cross Reef (Yongshu Reef, 永暑島) to administer the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) —
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) yesterday wrapped up its annual party conference-cum-national decision-making forums in Beijing: the National People’s Congress (NPC) and National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), known colloquially as the “two meetings.” They are normally tightly choreographed affairs, designed to project an image of stability and unassailable strength, but several events leading up this month’s sessions provided strong indications that all is not well in the state of Denmark. The first sign of major discontent came in March, at the height of the COVID-19 crisis in China, when an article by real-estate tycoon Ren Zhiqiang
French firm DCI-DESCO in April won a bid to upgrade Taiwan’s Lafayette frigates, which has strained ties between China and France. In 1991, France sold Taiwan six Lafayette frigates and in 1992 sold it 60 Mirage 2000 fighter jets. To prevent arms sales between the nations, China negotiated an agreement with France and in 1994 in a joint statement, France promised that there would be no future arms sales to Taiwan. From China’s point of view, the DCI-DESCO deal constitutes a breach of the agreement, but the French stance is that it is not selling Taiwan new weapons, but instead providing a
Chung Yuan ChristiaN University is clearly in bed with the People’s Republic of China. This can be the only explanation why the school’s authorities have done their utmost to shield a student, who lodged a complaint against an associate professor, and then used thuggish tactics to compel the teacher to issue two separate apologies to China. The original complaint, filed by an unnamed Chinese student, was for remarks by associate professor Chao Ming-wei (招名威) during a class on the origin of COVID-19. A second complaint was filed by the same student after Chao, during an apology, stated that he was a