The Crisis of Liberal Democracy and the Path Ahead

Alternatives to Political Representation and Capitalism

Bernd Reiter

• Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781786603647
• eBook ISBN: 9781786603661
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Democracy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Political representation and democracy are at odds and we need new models to organize politics without relying so heavily on elected representatives. Similarly, capitalism undermines markets, as the rich and wealthy shield their assets and make them untenable for average earners.

Elitism thus undermines both democracy and markets and we need to devise ways to limit the power of professional politicians, as well as the asset holdings of the rich so that the goods they hold can re-enter general markets.

A broad array of institutions and laws have been enacted in different places and at different times to block economic elitism and protect democratic self-rule. This book presents a number of such cases, historical as well as contemporary, where solutions to the problem of political and economic elitism have successfully been practiced. It then compares these cases systematically, to determine the common factors and hence the necessary conditions for ensuring, and protecting self-rule and equal opportunity. This book encourages the idea that alternatives to representative, capitalist democracy are possible and can be put to practice.

Chapter 1

Preparing the Ground

As anybody working the land knows, before one can plant, one must prepare the ground so that whatever is planted can grow. This chapter prepares the ground into which I will then plant. In it I lay out some of the assumptions I make or take for granted in this exercise. I also define some of the concepts I apply later in hopes to achieve clarity and precision and avoid misinterpretation.

WE NEED NEW UTOPIAS

Given the lack of coherent and encompassing alternative political and economic models at the current time, most public discontent finds an outlet in a frantic search for new leaders, new political parties, and ever newer social and political movements. The political right takes advantage of the widespread disenchantment and sells it, laced with racism, xenophobia, and pro-business policies, in the form of anti-candidates and anti-parties who mostly blame the victims: the poor, minorities, and immigrants. The political left has succumbed to an “against” movement that does not have a concrete, let alone shared, vision for how politics and economics should work. Without a coherent vision, not only are our possible actions deterred, but our analysis of reality also suffers, as we first need “the right” framework so we can ask “the right” questions. Without it, we keep on asking the wrong questions about who the better leader should be or which political party will offer a better solution to our common problems. While relevant, these are the wrong questions when seeking to analyze and understand our current situation. We do not need new or different leaders; we need less of them. Not asking important questions is also the outcome of massive media manipulation and a process of normalization that has elevated representative democracy and capitalism to a status of inevitability.

Scholars have long stood on the sidelines of this dilemma, more concerned with their own advancement and “tenure” than with the social and political problems we all face. As a result, the vanguard for both protest and innovative proposals for change comes from the streets. Christian Felcher, the founder of the Economy of the Common Good, holds no PhD (yet, he is still young and was already invited to teach at some prestigious universities). Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition Movement, has a similar profile. Innovation these days comes from the Lacandon Mayans before it comes from professors. Today, the Zapatistas have smarter and more inspiring things to say about the economy than Paul Krugman, who holds a Nobel Prize in Economics and charges several thousand dollars for every sentence he says in public.

We need new paradigms, new models, and new utopias—and scholars who systematically elaborate the viability of alternative ways to organize politics and the economy. It is an urgent task that requires some courage as the “discipline” more often than not punishes innovation before it rewards it (Kuhn 1962). Courage, however, is traded shortly among scholars these days, which is why the most promising proposals to reform our societies come not from scholars, but from activists and artists. The Zapatistas of southern Mexico demonstrate, through their praxis, that organizing our societies differently is possible. There are alternatives. They are practiced right now. They include alternative ways to organize politics, markets, lawmaking, education, agriculture, and others. While these are practicable and practiced solutions, they also point toward a broader horizon of possibilities. They seem to indicate that much more is in our reach.

Utopian thinking, as Ruth Levitas suggests, “provides a critical tool for exposing the limitations of current policy discourses about economic growth and ecological sustainability. It facilitates genuinely holistic thinking about possible futures, combined with reflexivity, provisionality and democratic engagement with the principles and practices of those futures” (Levitas 2013, xi).

Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2014) refers to this necessity of thinking about concrete possibilities as a “sociology of emergences.” He argues, “the sociology of emergences aims to identify and enlarge the signs of possible future experiences, under the guise of tendencies and latencies, that are actively ignored by hegemonic rationality and knowledge” (Santos 2014, 241).

Another author writing in this strain, Ana Cecilia Dinerstein, refers to the whole project of constructing alternative futures as “the Art of Organizing Hope” (Dinerstein 2014, 1). She bases her inquiry into the politics of autonomy in Latin America (the title of her book) on the idea of “prefiguring,” which for her “is the movements’ strategy in Latin America” (17). Prefiguration refers to probing into possible futures and (yet) unfulfilled possibilities.

Similarly, for J. K. Gibson-Graham, the proper task of social science inquiry is to fill the absences left by “realist” social science with political possibilities (Gibson-Graham 2006, xxxiii).

These authors and I all agree with pioneer H. G. Wells (1906), who argued, “The creation of Utopias—and their exhaustive criticism—is the proper and distinctive method of sociology” (quoted in Levitas 2013, 1).

This book seeks to contribute to the collective effort of finding and assessing the viability of alternative ways to organize ourselves politically and economically. It offers a systematic assessment of selected cases in which such alternatives have been practiced and are currently being practiced in order to identify common elements—necessary and sufficient factors. By doing so, I hope to bring “academia back in”—where “in” is the current worldwide search for alternatives to capitalist market organization and representative democracy. Against the “nasty” positions outlined earlier, I want to present alternatives that are more democratic and fairer for more people. In addition to the gutsy protests from such movements as Occupy Wall Street and the marchers in Brazil, I seek to provide what academia can: systematic assessment.

Inspiration for this task still comes from Ernst Bloch, who wrote:

Only thinking directed towards changing the world and informing the desire to change it does not confront the future (the unclosed space for new development in front of us) as embarrassment and the past as spell. Hence the crucial point is: only knowledge as conscious theory-practice confronts Becoming and what can be within it. (Bloch 1986, 8)

Utopias, as I understand them, can give us guidance and broaden the horizon of possibilities. The path toward achieving new possibilities must be one of looking for better institutions and better laws, as ultimately, innovation designed and promoted by social movements must consolidate into institutions, laws, and constitutions. New laws and constitutions, to be sure, cannot guarantee new practices and simply enacting new laws is not enough to bring about a new reality. Laws should grow out of praxis and not the other way around. Before the law thus comes culture.

CULTURE

“Culture is a symbolic system which transforms the physical reality, what is there, into experienced reality” (Lee 1987, 1). Dorothy Lee thus explains culture. What follows from this understanding of culture, for her as well as for me, is manifold. For her, “the universe as I know it or imagine it in the Western world is different from the universe of the Tikopia, in Polynesia. It follows, also, that I feel different about what I see” (Lee 1987, 1). Culture provides a lens or a way to see and understand the world and to make sense of it. These ways will be different and the worlds we live in will be different accordingly. What to one person is an act of valor, to the other is an act of cowardice, callousness, disrespect, or egotism. We can only attempt to understand others if we attempt to understand their culture and then seek ways to perceive, describe, and explain the world as they do, that is, applying their concepts, not ours. Too much of the nonwhite and non-European world has been described applying European ontological, epistemological, and analytical frameworks. To better understand the world and the diverse groups of people in it, we need to rid ourselves of this legacy and decolonize the social sciences.

Dorothy Lee (1987) offers another valuable insight about the working of culture and its relation to institutional structures. She explains: “Yet actually it is in connection with the highest personal autonomy that we often find the most intricately developed structure; and it is this structure that makes autonomy possible in a group situation” (Lee 1987, 9). It is precisely through this understanding of culture and the structure it provides for community life that the often accused contradiction between individual autonomy and collectivity can be resolved. When cultural structure provides guidance and limitations for individual and group behavior, it also affords freedom to the individual and group. Lee introduces the Navaho Indians of Arizona and New Mexico to illustrate this point. She writes: “In these accounts, we find a tightly knit group, depending on mutual responsibility among all its members, a precisely structured universe, and a great respect for individual autonomy and integrity. We find people who maintain an inviolable privacy while living as a family in a one-room house, sharing work and responsibility to such extent that even a child of six will contribute his share of mutton to the family meal” (Lee 1987, 10).

The same sense of great respect for individual autonomy and community can be found among the Hopi, the Trobrianders, the Lovedu, the Wintu, and many other groups living outside of the Western world and its focus on possessive and competitive individualism. In all of these societies, the typically Western contradiction between individual freedom and equality is resolved through a strong community and a very active participation in it, in which every member, including children, carries responsibilities toward the collective. As Lee explains, this is possible by putting great emphasis and importance to individual autonomy. In the societies she studies, Lee finds true respect for difference and mutual support in the collective effort to live within the structures culture establishes. None of the societies Lee describes rely on institutionalized hierarchies and rule. Whereas in Western societies a dualism between individual freedom and equality exists in which individual freedom has to be restricted to safeguard equal opportunity, Lee finds that “there are societies, however, where dualism is complementary, so that the terms of the duality are not opposed nor measured against each other, nor seem as discrete units” (Lee 1987, 48). Put simply, assuming and accepting that individual freedom and collectivity are opposed to each other is wrong. Collectivism and community can further and support individual agency if it is reliant on a deeply shared culture that provides the rules, restrictions, and guidelines for all. In such a situation, “the authority of the headman or the chief or the leader is in many ways like the authority of the dictionary, or of Einstein. There is no hint of coercion or command here; the people go to the leader with faith, as we go to the reference book, and the leader answers according to his greater knowledge, or clarifies an obscure point, or amplifies according to his greater experience and wisdom” (Lee 1987, 9).

Culture thus provides a framework in which obedience is not driven by individual authority or the authority of a specific group, political party, or the state. Instead it is a broadly shared framework under which all support each other in their effort to act in conformity with its structure and the guidelines and taboos derived from it. As the research of cultural anthropologists shows, there are many societies in which this has been achieved together with safeguarding individual autonomy and freedom. In fact, as Lee argues, “The concept of equality is irrelevant to this view of man. Here we have instead the full valuing of man in his uniqueness, enabling him to actualize himself, to use opportunity to the fullest, undeterred by the standards of an outside authority, not forced to deviate, to meet the expectations of others” (Lee 1987, 46).

Individual autonomy and freedom are thus combinable with equality and equal opportunity if and when strong community ties bring people and families together in common pursuit, guided by a shared framework or values and guidelines, that is, a shared culture. If that is the case, then, according to Lee,

Here and among the Trobrianders, equality itself is present, I think; that is, we find the fact of equality, as a dimension in relationships, as an aspect of the opportunity to be, to function. But its existence is derivative; it is not a goal, but is incidental to some other basic concept. It derives from the recognition of the right to be different, noncommensurate, unique; from the valuing of sheer being. When it is being itself which is valued, then none can be inferior or superior; would it be nonsense to say this is because all being equally is? If absolute fullness of opportunity is afforded, if the culture facilitates and implements freedom, thus making it possible for the individual to avail himself of his opportunity, then equality of opportunity may be said to be present, since all have fullness of opportunity. (Lee 1987, 44)

This is not to say that such a cultural framework exists among all non-Western societies or in all pre-capitalist societies. There are many empirical examples in which the cultural frameworks of non-Western societies produced competition, undermining individual autonomy and with it equality. Careful empirical research has to be conducted in order to determine what the common factors are that allow for the achievement of the double goal of individual freedom and autonomy and equality. The empirical examples discussed by Dorothy Lee leave no doubt that achieving both at the same time is a real possibility. The question I seek to address is what the conditions, institutions, and rules are that allow for the achievement of these double goals.

From Lee’s account, it becomes clear that community and culture are at the heart of this possibility. It is also clear that when such a cultural framework falls apart, as it has in advanced capitalist societies, the authority of guides who give example and advice gives way to rule. This can be individualistic rule, the rule of the state, the police, of thugs, of religious leaders, or others able to command obedience.

If we accept that some of us live in “post-traditional” societies, in which cultural norms are being challenged, then the question some have asked is: What can replace traditional culture? This is, however, a false problem, as any society and any group relies on some sort of culture to function. It is also not culture per se that allows for the achievement of individual autonomy and equality. It is a specific kind of culture and specific norms, values, and institutions that are able to produce this “win-win” situation, or a “positive-sum” game in the language of games. Many traditional and non-Western societies were and are totalitarian and despotic, as I have mentioned earlier. There is nothing intrinsic about the non-Western world, just as there is nothing about the Western world, that makes it naturally or automatically superior or inferior. It is a matter of identifying those elements that have produced this win-win situation in the past and the present, isolating them through analytical procedure, and detecting possible ways to combine them. Some of the institution so discovered might not be transferable as they rely on a broader cultural context. Culture, however, changes constantly and there is no fixed, predetermined way in which specific groups of humans must organize. At the least, we can all learn from the different solutions found and developed in different places to the universal problem of protecting freedom and equality. Once we know those, we can then proceed with a discussion of where and under what circumstances specific institutional designs fit best, given the particularities of a given community.

INSTITUTIONS AND THE POLITICAL

From the outset, I assume that the economy, as a subsystem of human life, must be subordinated to human needs, which means that it must be politically controlled and hence democratized (Dowbor 2012). Politics, in my vision, thus necessarily trumps economics in that politics must be the realm in which different market interchanges are regulated and controlled. This control must happen through laws and institutions. Ideally, a democratic society collectively decides what kind of economy it would like to have. It does so by collective deliberation and decision making. The outcome of such a collective deliberation and decision-making process becomes a custom protected by law. It becomes institutionalized. Smart institutions are those able to achieve several goals at once, as I have previously argued. Ideally, the laws and institutions regulating land ownership avoid the concentration of property in a few hands, while also ensuring equal opportunity and sustainability.

The basic requirement for this to occur is that a society discusses economic institutions, or better political institutions regulat...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 Preparing the Ground
• PART I: THEORY
• PART II: EMPIRICAL CASES
• PART III: ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS
• Appendix
• Bibliography
• Index