Liberal markets don’t necessarily liberalise society
Most of us on the political right accept - to differing degrees - that economic liberalisation is ‘a good thing’ and that, especially, it’s a very good antidote to despots and tyrants.
The logic goes that economies tend only to flourish within free and open societies where the freedom of ideas - and speech - are primary sources of the ideas and enterprise that lead to successful capitalism. For a government to enjoy the fruits of free trade it needs to liberate its people so that they can provide those fruits.
The International Herald Tribune explains why this might not necessarily be the case.
Political freedom requires some supporting freedoms:
To effectively pursue political power, citizens have to engage in “strategic coordination”: activities such as disseminating information, recruiting and organizing party members, selecting leaders, raising funds and holding meetings and demonstrations.
Economic progress requires some supporting freedom also:
“Standard public goods” include public transportation, primary and secondary education, and public health; all of which contribute to economic growth and pose relatively little threat to the regime.
The more sophisticated regimes have managed to provide the latter but not the former, so enjoying improved economic performance while flat-lining in the personal freedom stakes. This has happened…
… in China, Russia and other states where authoritarian regimes loosened the economic reins. Economic growth arrived but liberal democracy is still nowhere is sight. The reason is simple but disturbing: A new and more sophisticated breed of autocrat has discovered a strategy that permits them to enjoy the benefits of economic growth while postponing - often for decades - the emergence of authentic competitive democracy.
We need to recognise that promoting economic growth is not nearly as effective a way to promote democracy as was once believed. It may that donor organisations need to tie civil liberty strings to their loans. Until a country has a free press, the right to organise itself politically and freedom of speech it is not free in any meaningful sense of the word.
How about the gigantic parasites that encircle the new system and gradually strangle it, monopolies, oligopolies, the whole free trade (open your little economy to our huge vacuum, its the democratic way, etc.) WTO fraud. If countries up near the front of the line have a hard time staying in the game what chance do more backward economies have. And now we see that under the general title of unbridled power, assemblies of such economic groups of corporate form parasites, like the USA, have turned to outright theft and banditry. What is the point of all this malarky about a democracy that never really was , and now most definitely is a never wuzzer. We do not have to abandon reason and join a faker like Deepak Chopra endlessly mumbling loop after loop of nonsense phrases, but , in a way, is that not what we have been doing .
Comment by garhane — January 2, 2006 @ 8:23 pm