Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

April 23, 2009 |  11 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Future of Democracy in Question After Financial Crisis

Bijan Daniel Khezri: Blind faith in democracy is coming to an end. Rather than introducing more regulation, democracies should become more corporate and results-oriented. Until such reform happens, increasing numbers of ambitious citizens will abandon democracies for other nations.

 
The global credit crunch took the world by surprise. Debates on the "future of capitalism" have taken center stage, and governments around the world now indulge in the fact that the balance of power is shifting again in favor of the state. Batteries of regulations are in the making. The retrenchment of the private sector and the suffocation of risk-taking entrepreneurship and innovation are likely casualties. The debate we should really have, though, is titled "The Future of Democracy". This age, characterized by a blind fixation on democracy as the answer to all ills, is likely to come to an end.

The current credit crisis offers a unique opportunity to question our economic, regulatory, and fiscal structures. But more importantly, we should question the process that generates these choices in the first place and determines their fulfillment. Democracies must become corporate and results-oriented. Reforms should center on the role of the individual lawmaker, the mandate for a political business plan, and the relationship between the legislative and executive.

Similar to Switzerland's system, lawmakers should not be career politicians, but practice a profession outside of parliament. This is likely to take the "glamour" out of lawmaking, but should increase the emphasis on efficiency and results. Every parliament should also include a certain number of lawmakers that have no past or present affiliation with any one political party. This has the potential to reignite the electorate's engagement in the political process. Modern media, blogging and social networking have substantially reduced the individual's barriers and costs to entering politics, but for the gate-keeping of political parties. We must end the vicious trap where a lawmaker's independence and political judgment are hijacked by party politics to the extent where the latter solely defines one's political existence and consciousness.

Election manifestos must become business plans - defined by principles and measured by performance benchmarks against spending. Once approved by the legislative, the executive must be fully empowered to execute with authority. Government spending must be capped as a percentage of gross national product for the governing period. During the governing period, the legislative's primary responsibility is to supervise the execution of the "business plan" and ensure that ad-hoc policy making is in accordance with established principles, objectives, and spending.

The consequences credit market implosion will serve as a catalyst to break the thin ice on which democracies and its leaders have operated for too long. With hardly any understanding of the implied systemic risks of allowing the financial services industry to excessively prosper, political leaders in the world's democracies ignored the obvious warning signals, and they, more so than bankers, should be held to account. This debate, currently suffocated by a cloud of regulatory activism and an emotional deprecation of the financial services sector, has yet to start.

In the meantime, more and more aspiring individuals will decide to exit democracies which are over-taxed and have poor public services for more promising places eastwards. Voice has become meaningless, and loyalty to any particular system or country is progressively diminishing. Democracy must reinvent itself to truly represent the citizen's interests.

Bijan Khezri, a London-based entrepreneur-financier, is the author of Generation Dubai: Exit, Voice and Loyalty. 

 

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community

 

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Unregistered User

April 23, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Whoever treats governments as corporations will find out, sooner or later, that they are not the same; and should not be regarded as such. It is not realistic nor desirable.

As a customer I expect the good price-quality ratio when I buy a product or service from some company. I another company has a better ratio, I'll change company.

This is not possible with governments: no market discipline. What is more: I expect so much more from my government. Safety, security; too many things that cannot be labeled as ordinary services.

Having said that: Bijan Khezri's plea has some virtue, like all pleas for New Public Management. We must make sure that governments are result oriented, efficient. But not at all costs. There is more to take care of.
 
Joerg  Wolf

April 23, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thanks for your comment.

It would be great if you could register for free and fill out the personal profile.

We believe that commenters are taken more seriously, if they reveal their real identity rather than post anonymously.

This would also enable you to network with nearly 3000 members. And it would also save you time commenting, since registered members (who are logged in) do not need to type those captchas. If you have already registered, but forgot your password, you can get a new one.

If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact the atlantic-community.org staff.
 
Florian  Kuhne

April 23, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Alright, nations should be treated as corporations? OMG! I think we can shut down the social system then. What an idea! Absolutely slanted toward profits, the weaker ones will fall down and society will turn into a brutal system of elbow-mentality and egocentric thinking. I cannot believe you are meaning what you are writing. I do not complain about a new way of thinking about democracies, as I wrote somewhere else, democracy promotion US-style turned out very bad in some instances. But nations treated like corporations... Sorry, that sounds awful to me.

 
Donald  Stadler

April 24, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
People are going to abandon democracies in droves for "more promising places eastward".

Presumably the author means Dubai, or perhaps Russia and China?

I doubt it. Russia has a little fiscal crisis of it's own, and most of China isn't a terribly hospitable place for Western entrepeneurs either. I work for an expanding entrepenurial startup company based in Ireland, and they have just opened a major new office in London, in the depresed UK. To be closer to their customers, it seems.
 
Bernhard  Lucke

April 24, 2009

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I liked the comment, especially the hint towards the connections of politicians and lawmakers. Is this how democracies work, or merely oligarchies? Looking at the US, and some countries in Europe, I think oligarchy might better describe the real power structures even though elections are free and secret.

Bill Gates predicted that the internet will lead to revolutions, and it seems the election of Obama is the first of those.

I don not see why it is so bad if governments would function like corporations - for the people, any by the people, instead by professional politicians and vast bureaucracies whose only right to exist is the hierarchy of power.

However, the mantra of "freedom and democracy" has to be taken with care. Hitler was elected, too, and total freedom will likely ruin the planet if we fail to establish some checks and balances.

In the end, we come back to philosophy and can re-discuss Plato's proposal of a perfect state. Some guys downstairs started to read "The Capital". I think it's worth it - there are so many people disappointed, and the current structures have so many crusts and flaws, that it is a good thing if we start to question things again. People should be in the focus, not ideologies, money, or systems. Thanks god the modern media offer a way to participate peacefully in decision-making, because communication is so easy.
 
Patrick  Edwin Moran

April 26, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
It is possible to have a democratically elected government that is not responsive to the people who elected it. One way to achieve this state is for people and organizations possessed of wealth and power to influence the vote. The same general result can be achieved in a more chaotic way when populations are given the vote without their having any prior experience in weeding the demagogues and incompetents out from the candidates who actually have the will and capabilities necessary to coordinate the several organs of a modern society.

There are at least two forms of "democratic" government envisioned today. According to one view, a society is a kind of Darwinian nature preserve in which all predation that does not threaten the entire ecosystem is permitted. Members of society may cause damages to other members of society but not be held responsible for those damages. Members of society may take advantage of others as long as the degree of oppression involved in not painfully obvious and unseemly. Everyone is encouraged to believe that s/he may become "king of the mountain" and so become vastly superior to those in his/her previous position. It is clear that this kind of society cannot tolerate forms of socialization that favor empathy or what Schweitzer called "reverence for life."

Another kind of "democratic" government has an equally long history, but does not put a premium on the ballot as the way of selecting leaders. In practice, dependence on what would now be called technocrats proved not to be a reliable way to maintain adherence to the primary goal of government -- that it should be responsive to the needs of the people. One might have a corporation whose motto would not be that "technology is our product," but that "a good growing medium for the people is our product." But who would be the board of directors of that corporation? Who would determine when the growing medium had begun to grow sour because the corporation was siphoning off too much of the sugar for the special use of its officers?

Unless one believes that certain people came into the universe with the inherent right to rule over others and take more than their share of the resources of the world, one will ask about anybody who presumes to rule and to rapine, "Why should I submit to you?"

If one believes that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," then one will seek a society that gives everyone an equal playing field and requires everyone not to take more than their share. One obvious implication of such a form of government is seen in a negative corollary of the above rule: If someone engages in some activity that imposes costs on the environment, those costs must come out of that person's profit and not be imposed on the rest of the society. Equal educational opportunities also naturally follow from that kind of a social contract.

Voting in a situation where there is free flow of information generally works out better than management by a paternalistic managerial class.
Tags: | social contract |
 
Florian  Kuhne

April 27, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Bernhard, dear Patrick,

thank you for you comments. I believe, both of you made some good points, although I do not agree with the knock-out argument that Hitler was elected as explanation for the failures of democracy. There are plenty but what are the alternatives. In my view, every democracy has to "promote" itself to its citizens. And to do that, it is absolutely necessary to educate and to tell the people what are benfits and what are risks. Government and every single institution needs to show/promote the importance of their work. The point is, that educated and open-minded citizens will understand the system and see clear the benefits of it. And to take part, as you pointed out, Bernhard. That seems crucial to me.

One other major task of the state and its citizens is to create a conciousness for responsibilty in every way, foremost in social responsibility, but also in ecological responsibility for instance. This leads back to the topic of Mr Khezris article. To try and transform democracies and social systems into corporatist units will turn out the other way round. This said, I would like to join Mr Moran in his argumentation. Discussion about the societies we live in and how they can be changed for the better (which is possible and should be done in some ways) is necessary and absolutely desirable. But I think this has to happen within limits of democracy.

In short, "voter education" and "social responsibility" are the terms which can and may lead to a better understanding of and a better living in a democratic society, without necessarily transforming the nation into a corporation, accountable only to profits, not people.
 
Ria  Voorhaar

April 28, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?


I think there is always room for more accountability in government. Are free, democratic elections enough to ensure that accountability? The number of political scandals the grace newspaper front pages in the world's democracies suggest not. Is there a better system? But I still have a series of concerns about the way to improve our democracies. Do you think the attitudes of the free market likely to hinder rather than improve them?
Tags: | global economy | democracy |
 
Natalie Catherine Chwalisz

April 29, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Democracies are not only defined by free and fair elections, but by social institutions that ensure accountability and that it remains in the interest of the government to govern for the people. Thus, let’s not devaluate democracies, because in not fully functioning systems, the elections have resulted in dictatorial governments.

However, because of the social contract underlying democracies, a corporate system cannot be applied. Corporate responsibility is an evolving and murky concept, not in the least because the only accountability corporations have is to their investors' desire for financial gain. The continued existence of tragedy of the commons underscores the necessity for a government entity that takes the public interest at heart.

Furthermore, I disagree with Mr. Khezri’s statement that party politics are the problem. Look at the failure of Parliamentary politics in Afghanistan, where President Kharzai pushed through individual elections over party elections. Thus, the parliament is full with influential individuals without a party platform to which to adhere. The result is a chaos of different alliance changing on every issue, erratic decision-making processes and little accountability.

Party platforms are the “business plan” in the sense that they are the vision that the party plans to enact. If I see a problem, it may be the lack of party choices in the Anglo-Saxon system, which leads to a default again on individual politics, which often is unrepresentative of the diverse interests of democratic societies.

In the meantime, if people consider democratic societies to slow in their processes of change, they are welcome to emigrate to Dubai. However, one can only hope that they will not loose their job, or become sick- because in corporate societies, there is no use for unproductive individuals, and thus no social programs to catch those at risk.

Nevertheless, I greatly enjoyed reading the comments. Healthy debate regarding systems of governance is important, if for no other reason that it keeps the pressure on the system to perform.

 
Lee  Daly

May 2, 2009

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I would just like to pick up on what Bijan says about including the input of people who are not part of political parties in governments. I think the selection of these individuals would be just as troublesome as the issues faced in terms of who is elected by parties. The experience of social partnership in Ireland has shown that high level positions in government bodies are packed with members of trade unions and employers groups, who often have little idea how to run these bodies. For example, we have members of trade unions who have never worked in aviation on the board of the semi-state airline company. Just as with political parties, the qualities needed to rise to the top of these organisations are not the same qualities that make for good public officials. At least with political parties we can chose who to elect of such a pool of people.
 
Bijan Daniel Khezri

May 6, 2009

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
With great interest I have followed all comments. Thank you for the thought-provoking contributions. It appears, though, that the thinking underlying some of the comments is either compromised by a misunderstanding or simply flawed.
The debate we need to have is not so much whether, and to what degree, the state has an important role to play. The current economic crisis highlights that the state has a far-reaching role to assume in restoring balance across all economic activity – at least temporarily. But we need a fresh approach to re-thinking how Government can be made more accountable, whatever the program. Parliamentarians have tolerated, and partly fueled, the excessive and unsustainable growth of the finance sector. It generated a welcome source of tax revenues as well as an electoral tool to ‘build’ a homeowner society. Politicians, more so than bankers, should be held to account.
Democracy is the least evil governance system. I am not questioning democracy in principle. But I believe that Western democracy has lost its path. Party programs have been degenerated to the lowest common denominator to access the central voter base. Electoral programs are as empty scripts as “social responsibility” is an empty concept, unless you can measure an outcome against spending over a defined period of time.
The current system produces an unacceptably high number of losers. And the losers are not the wealthy. The rich have created a system within the system: their children go to private schools, they have access to the private health sector, and they do not rely on public transport to get to work. Those that have no other choice but rely in education, healthcare and transport on what the Government produces, those are not only dissatisfied and feel disenfranchised, but increasingly exit their state and search for better opportunities elsewhere. Western democracy’s social safety net is treating more the symptoms of the system rather than the roots of the problem. When measured against the overall taxation that is being imposed on society, Western democracy, as currently practiced, is an economically inferior system, debilitated by the absence of sufficient job creation.
We need to become more pragmatic. I am convinced that it is just a matter of time for the nature and structure of our current democratic system to be broadly questioned. As it stands, it is a short-sighted circus, trapped in an all too familiar power-cycle. The current economic crisis is a unique opportunity to not only question our economic, fiscal and regulatory structures. We need to question the system that generates our leaders and produces our policy choices in the first place. The alternative is not autocracy or an oligarchy. But democracy needs a dose of autocracy, empowering an executive to deliver results and be held accountable for it. I am not purporting to have the answers. But it is time to ask the questions.

Bijan Khezri
Tags: | generation dubai |
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Anna  Przybyll
Anna Przybyll
"A wise old owl lived in an oak The more he..."

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?