Enlightened Absolutism vs Democracy
I believe in democracy. I grew up in the United States, where democracy is practically a religion. And I believe in the tradition of democracy, as it developed from roots in the ancient world (especially Athens, according to many western historians) and helped form modern republican traditions like those of my native United States and current home the United Kingdom.
But I have started to wonder about whether democratic government is always the best route in the modern world - or more precisely, whether governments that we in the West call undemocratic deserve to be criticized on that grounds.
Enlightened Absolutism. Might there be a role for the "enlightened absolutism" that was championed by European monarchs of the 18th century and French philosopher Voltaire? As Encyclopaedia Britannica defines it, monarchs advocating this form of government "typically instituted administrative reform, religious toleration, and economic development but did not propose reforms that would undermine their sovereignty or disrupt the social order."
Belarus. I started asking this question because, in the past couple of years, I have spent a lot of time in Belarus, whose President Alexander Lukashenko has been called "Europe's last dictator", resulting in EU and US sanctions against the country. What I have learned, though, is that Belarus is a peaceful, stable country with very little visible poverty (the poverty rate is one of the lowest in Europe). The country as a whole remains of modest means, including because of Lukashenko's failure to embrace western capitalism, but it seems a rather contented lack of means. I am not an apologist for Lukashenko's human rights violations (including locking up political opponents - most of whom he recently freed), but Belarus does not seem to be suffering from lack of democracy. Compare the situation in Ukraine, which has been literally torn about by elections and shifting power. Maybe that's the right path for Ukraine, but I don't think one can say it's obviously a better path for the country's people than the one taken in Belarus.
China. Moving to a bigger stage, China (where much of my investment work is focused) also has an undemocratic government. Watching the impressive ongoing progress of the Chinese economy (which continues notwithstanding the recent slowdown of growth), I wonder whether these achievements would have been possible without the ability of the Communist Party to make difficult decisions about economic change without the threat of real political opposition (although some commentators have suggested that central control has been a poor approach to the recent turmoil in Chinese financial markets).
The Chinese Communist Party claims that it is moving the country towards "socialist democracy", but this means something very different from Western democracy. At the end of a recent event I attended at the Chinese embassy in London, I was handed a copy of a book What Kind of Democracy Do Chines People Want by Zhang Minshu, which articulates a less individualistic concept of democracy than the Western one.
Free Speech and Human Rights. The biggest problem in my view with absolutist regimes like those in China and Belarus are their weakness in permitting free speech, and often other human rights. The systems in these countries are far more totalitarian than the enlightened absolutist regimes of the 18th century, and have powerful and aggressive state mechanisms to suppress dissent. In the era of the Internet, these regimes perceive (with some justification) that such control is necessary to maintain stability. I recently attended the Ai Wei Wei exhibit at London's Royal Academy of Art, and Ai makes powerful arguments that the resolute and sometimes brutal Chinese suppression of unpopular views is bad for the future of the country.
United States. So how do these modern absolutist regimes stack up against that bastion of democracy, the United States? Not too badly, in my view. US "democracy" has disintegrated into a pitched battle between Republicans and Democrats, with little room for reasonable middle ground, and the final choice of the president being made in a small number of states that have the possibility of going to either party. The country is unable to control guns, and seems to be becoming increasingly xenophobic. A surprising number of people are buying the angry, selfish messages of Donald Trump (who suggested excluding Muslims from the country entirely) and Ted Cruz. This is not the kind of democracy that I want.
In sum, I remain a believer in democracy. But I am far from sure that systems of government meeting the western definition of "democracy" are the only reasonable choice in the modern world. There appear to be other approaches that can be considered to promote human opportunity and human rights.
But I have started to wonder about whether democratic government is always the best route in the modern world - or more precisely, whether governments that we in the West call undemocratic deserve to be criticized on that grounds.
Enlightened Absolutism. Might there be a role for the "enlightened absolutism" that was championed by European monarchs of the 18th century and French philosopher Voltaire? As Encyclopaedia Britannica defines it, monarchs advocating this form of government "typically instituted administrative reform, religious toleration, and economic development but did not propose reforms that would undermine their sovereignty or disrupt the social order."
Belarus. I started asking this question because, in the past couple of years, I have spent a lot of time in Belarus, whose President Alexander Lukashenko has been called "Europe's last dictator", resulting in EU and US sanctions against the country. What I have learned, though, is that Belarus is a peaceful, stable country with very little visible poverty (the poverty rate is one of the lowest in Europe). The country as a whole remains of modest means, including because of Lukashenko's failure to embrace western capitalism, but it seems a rather contented lack of means. I am not an apologist for Lukashenko's human rights violations (including locking up political opponents - most of whom he recently freed), but Belarus does not seem to be suffering from lack of democracy. Compare the situation in Ukraine, which has been literally torn about by elections and shifting power. Maybe that's the right path for Ukraine, but I don't think one can say it's obviously a better path for the country's people than the one taken in Belarus.
China. Moving to a bigger stage, China (where much of my investment work is focused) also has an undemocratic government. Watching the impressive ongoing progress of the Chinese economy (which continues notwithstanding the recent slowdown of growth), I wonder whether these achievements would have been possible without the ability of the Communist Party to make difficult decisions about economic change without the threat of real political opposition (although some commentators have suggested that central control has been a poor approach to the recent turmoil in Chinese financial markets).
The Chinese Communist Party claims that it is moving the country towards "socialist democracy", but this means something very different from Western democracy. At the end of a recent event I attended at the Chinese embassy in London, I was handed a copy of a book What Kind of Democracy Do Chines People Want by Zhang Minshu, which articulates a less individualistic concept of democracy than the Western one.
Free Speech and Human Rights. The biggest problem in my view with absolutist regimes like those in China and Belarus are their weakness in permitting free speech, and often other human rights. The systems in these countries are far more totalitarian than the enlightened absolutist regimes of the 18th century, and have powerful and aggressive state mechanisms to suppress dissent. In the era of the Internet, these regimes perceive (with some justification) that such control is necessary to maintain stability. I recently attended the Ai Wei Wei exhibit at London's Royal Academy of Art, and Ai makes powerful arguments that the resolute and sometimes brutal Chinese suppression of unpopular views is bad for the future of the country.
United States. So how do these modern absolutist regimes stack up against that bastion of democracy, the United States? Not too badly, in my view. US "democracy" has disintegrated into a pitched battle between Republicans and Democrats, with little room for reasonable middle ground, and the final choice of the president being made in a small number of states that have the possibility of going to either party. The country is unable to control guns, and seems to be becoming increasingly xenophobic. A surprising number of people are buying the angry, selfish messages of Donald Trump (who suggested excluding Muslims from the country entirely) and Ted Cruz. This is not the kind of democracy that I want.
In sum, I remain a believer in democracy. But I am far from sure that systems of government meeting the western definition of "democracy" are the only reasonable choice in the modern world. There appear to be other approaches that can be considered to promote human opportunity and human rights.
No comments have been added yet.
