[NikolaAAA]

The new age of authoritarianism



By Chrystia Freeland

Last updated: August 11 2008 19:48

In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, democracy was on the march and we declared the End of History. Nearly two decades later, a neo-imperialist Russia is at war with Georgia, Communist China is proudly hosting the Olympics, and we find that, instead, we have entered the Age of Authoritarianism.

It is worth recalling how different we thought the future would be in the immediate, happy aftermath of the end of the cold war. Remember Francis Fukuyama’s ringing assertion: “The triumph of the west, of the western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to western liberalism.”

Even in the heady days of 1989, that declaration of universal – and possibly eternal – ideological victory seemed a little hubristic to Professor Fukuyama’s many critics. Yet his essay made such an impact because it captured the enormity, and the enormous benefits, of the change sweeping through the world. Not only was the stifling Soviet – which was really the Russian – suzerainty over central and eastern Europe and central Asia coming to an end but, even more importantly, the very idea of a one-party state, ruthlessly presiding over a centrally planned economy, seemed to be discredited, if not forever, then surely for our lifetimes.

That collapse brought freedom and prosperity to millions of people who had lived under Soviet rule. Moreover, the implosion of Soviet communism inspired hundreds of millions of others around the world to embrace freer markets and demand more responsive governments. The great global economic boom of the past 20 years, which has brought more people out of poverty more quickly than at any other time in human history, would not have been possible had the Soviet way of ordering the world not been discredited first.

Yet today, in much of the world, the spread of freedom is being checked by an authoritarian revanche. That shift has been most obvious in the petro-states, where oil is casting its usual curse. From Latin America to Africa to the Middle East, the black-gold bonanza has given authoritarian regimes the currency to buy off or to repress their subjects. In Russia, oil has fuelled an economic boom that prime minister Vladimir Putin, and some of his foreign admirers, mistakenly attribute to his careful demolition of the chaotic democracy of the 1990s.

For Russians, that argument is strengthened by the fact that the rising economic power of the moment – China – is unashamedly sticking to its faith in one-party rule. The end of the cold war made it tempting to believe that as countries opened up their markets, and became richer in the process, they would inevitably open up their societies, too. George W. Bush, US president, reiterated that hopeful thesis on his Asia tour last week, insisting: “Young people who grow up with the freedom to trade goods will ultimately demand the freedom to trade ideas.”

But the Chinese mandarins and the Russian siloviki are taking a different view – and acting on it. As China scholar David Shambaugh recounts in his new book, China’s Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation, the CCP studied the collapse of Soviet communism with great care. And rather than seeing it as proof of the inevitable, global triumph of western liberalism, the Chinese comrades treated the Russian example as a textbook case of what a ruling Communist party ought not to do.

In this version of history, sinologist Andrew Nathan tells me, 1989 is also a turning point, but not because that was when communism’s most notorious wall came down. Instead, the key event of that year was the bloody suppression of protesters in Tiananmen Square: “As a propaganda position they have put it out that we had a crackdown in 1989 and we saved the party and we saved the country,” he says. “We didn’t have a failure of will like the Russians. Without that, we wouldn’t have been a great, modern power.” That’s a point of view Mr Putin has embraced, too, describing the collapse of the Soviet Union as a tragedy and his own reconstruction of a neo-authoritarian state as the only way to restore Russian “greatness”.

The west has been remarkably sanguine about this resurgence of authoritarianism, and one reason is that, this time, the comrades have money. Even as the Kremlin repeatedly confiscates the assets not just of its own businesspeople, but of foreign ones, too, investment bankers, and plain old investors, are flocking to a Moscow flush with petro-roubles. The same is true of the Gulf states. China, on a path to become the world’s largest economy, is the most attractive of all.

But the Age of Authoritarianism is bad news for all of us, not just the human rights campaigners that businesspeople and practitioners of realpolitik love to dismiss. Like all overly rigid objects, authoritarian regimes conceal a tremendous fragility in their apparent strength – and their leaders know it. It is this realisation that has driven Mr Putin’s systematic destruction of all forms of civil society – an eminently pragmatic measure, although it has mystified some outside observers, who wonder why so popular a leader needs to be so heavy-handed. China’s chiefs have figured this out, too, hence their anxiety about everything from the Muslim Uighurs to the internet to the former Soviet Union’s “colour revolutions”.

Of course, another way to ensure popular support for your authoritarian regime is by playing up nationalist sentiment. We are more tolerant of our home-grown bullies if we think we need them to fight our enemies abroad – as even democratic America has demonstrated in recent years. Mr Putin has understood this all along, launching a brutal attack on Chechnya even before his coronation as president in 2000.

Russia’s expert taunting of the hotheads in Georgia, followed by immediate and massive retaliation the moment Tbilisi took the bait, is the latest evidence that, for the Kremlin, neo-imperialism is an essential bulwark of neo-authoritarianism. Bringing down the walls really did make the world safer. Now that so many leaders are building them back up again, figuring out how to contain the 21st century’s monied authoritarians is our most pressing foreign policy dilemma.

chrystia.freeland@ft.com

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

[ecosportpol_ru]

Odd that Ms Freeland makes no direct mention of the Invasion of Iraq -- and the involvement of both Britain and the USA -- as an expression of the New Authoritarianism.

[Clielldub]

We have elections.

[cut sifted ephedra sinica]

We have elections.

So do Russia and Iran

[osteoftex]

We also have Diebold.

We can talk more about that come November.

[enrisaabsotte]

Authoritarian states have no need for Diebold.

You're confusing authoritarianism and imperialism. A state doesn't have to be the former to exhibit the latter.

[hellencomstar]

Authoritarians infiltrate and use agent provocateurs to spark violent protests among their political opposition and use this as an excuse to forcefully crack down on and monitor these political groups (for public safety and security of course).

Who wants to be caged into a 'free speech zone' in Denver or Minneapolis-St. Paul when some 'anarchists' start throwing stuff at the jumpy taser-toting stomp squad?

Don't authoritarians chill political opposition by intimidation and thinly veiled threats of violence? Don't authoritarians control and manipulate their population with fear?

An excellent film set within an authoritarian society.

[shihoodiacarf]

We have elections.

Formal elections don't always mean that the will of the people, so to speak, is being properly represented. In fact, most Americans have no clue why the US spends around 700 billion on the military every single year and maintains bases in so many hot spots around the world, including places where there's very questionable need for them (like Germany). Recently, the US started installing missile defense sites in Eastern Europe infuriating Russia where the official version was that we were trying to protect Europe from Iran.

I assume that 99% of Americans would have no clue why we are spending billions building installations in Europe against Iran where the chances of Iran attacking Europe are infinitely small.

And some authoritarian regimes (prime example - China) are able to maintain very effective domestic policies that some other supposedly democratic governments have struggled to do.

Not to mention other ills of our own democracy - buying up votes (i.e., campaign contributions, lobbying, etc), corporate and farm welfare, pork barrel spending, deficit spending (500 bil spent just this of the money we don't have), the unnecessary or questionable wars, etc. Democracy does not seem to always work to the betterment of the human kind, unfortunately.

[KixdricyArrip]

^
Representative government is no guarantee wise decisions.

Did the Russian "electorate" have any clue as to what was going to happen a few days ago?

And some authoritarian regimes (prime example - China) are able to maintain very effective domestic policies that some other supposedly democratic governments have struggled to do. Care to expand on this?

Democracy does not seem to always work to the betterment of the human kind, unfortunately. This is usually the rationale of governments as they move from authoritarian to totalitarian, and carry on their work for "the betterment of humankind." We've been down that road many times.

Some perspective on who's where.

[blogforloversxx]

Jasonik, I think your allusion to US authoritarianism-in-development is a little overreaching. It's not there yet (let's at least wait 'til after elections). What is true, though, is what Zippy brought up - American imperialism. The Georgian conflict pretty much confirmed that the US is just as imperial as anyone else, but - it didn't tell Saakasvili what to say or do. He made his own decisions and screwed himself. If the US were authoritarian, they would have made his decisions for him.

The article brings up a few obvious but important points. While even during the years after 1989 the public felt a sense of global peace and stability, there were still significant conflicts going on. However, there was the belief that we'd moved on from the heady conflicts that had begun well before the 20th century and continued throughout nine-tenths of it. The resurrection of authoritarianism as a legitimate political economy model, and moreover, its positive consequences for countries like China and Russia (on mainly economic, but also other, levels), means that - in a world that never guaranteed global stability, but only gave the illusion of it - the existence of these modern manifestations of authoritarianism completely shifts the balance of power away from the West, consciously and through demonstration (as evinced by the Georgian conflict). It also means that, since these mini-ethnic conflicts are bound to kindle and rekindle where they always have, there will be more opportunities for geopolitical conflicts to escalate into a truly global scale.

Part of the reason for the fallible belief in global stability and Western domination post-1989 was the faith in the status quo maintaining itself through the MAD theory. As long as there were only a few major nuclear powers, no one rational would dare escalate an irrelevant ethnic conflict onto the world stage (except the US, in a way). But post-Internet and post-oil boom, there are additional methods of attack that everyone is certainly vulnerable to: cyber and economic.

We need to be aware of this new paradigm and react diplomatically going forward. Flexing our muscle now will only lead to trouble, and we are exceptionally vulnerable economically. Whether we like it or not, there's a new place for the United States in the 21st century, and it'll take some getting used to.

[LasTins]

Did the Russian "electorate" have any clue as to what was going to happen a few days ago?

Did our electorate had a clue why we went into Iraq and did it have the real and truthful information about it? How about Vietnam? Does the electorate authorize spending hundreds of billions of dollars on defense?

Do you feel that the presidential elections really represent free choice - with all the money, and all the theatrics of the modern campaigns where hundreds of staffers plan candidate's every move, PACs raise and spend loads of money, etc.?

I think this form of democracy in a way creates an illusion of choice whereas in reality it's not that democratic.

[Gymnarnemia]

^
As a Russian, your tone appears to be one of defensiveness as to the direction your homeland has taken.

You're entitled to believe that authoritarianism is the right choice for the Russian people. The U.S. has been in this situation before; repression was much more intense in the early 50s, but we seem to work our way out of it. The last time Russia went down this path, it lasted for over 70 years.

[Sydaycymn]

Jasonik, I think your allusion to US authoritarianism-in-development is a little overreaching.

I don't want us to become complacent and settle for relative freedom, but strive for and defend absolute freedom. On that score we have a way to go.

We're already going down the road of, 'well in London they have cameras and checkpoints everywhere, and they can't have guns, so what's the big deal?'

Or, 'in Israel they use racial profiling and treat people differently based on religion and ethnicity for the sake of safety, so what's the big deal?'

Or, 'it doesn't mean anything that the largest military-industrial corporations also own the major media conglomerates. Government contracts and advertisers' government contracts won't influence the way the news is reported. We have a free press.'

Or, 'government officials can break the law, even lie about it and cover it up -- as long as they say they did it to protect us, what's the big deal?'

Bureaucratic government's natural tendency is to acquire power, and politicians' natural tendency is to exercise power. There are no checks and balances anymore, just checks and negative account balances.

And STOP with all this talk of -- and reverence for -- democracy.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

[Seasmillets]

In our early history, it was understood that a free society embraced both personal civil liberties and economic liberties. During the 20th Century, this unified concept of freedom has been undermined.

I just love this blind nostalgia for the Early Republic.

The Founding Fathers also created an apartheid state. All things considered, I think we're in a better place today.

[cepAceryTem]

I haven't heard that blanket dismissal of the entire ethos of limited government before... *yawn*

Speaking of authoritarians, what about Lincoln and his bloody war?
In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.

[ffflyer]

The Civil War, one of Ron Paul's more bizarre views:

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach. So they're still property. So much for inalienable rights.

Of course, the Confederate States, who had already begun secession before Lincoln's inauguration, would have had to agree that the problem of slavery was merely property compensation, something like human eminent domain, and not one of states' rights to uphold the concept of slavery.

Not to mention that the Southern economy depended heavily on very cheap labor.

I wonder what that scenario would have evolved into.

[eduptultyt]

Another view of Thomas DiLorenzo

[Switiespils]

What's with the agenda?

I'm pointing out examples of American authoritarianism and you seem to be defending or ignoring the examples by playing a gotcha game of ad hominem moral relativism.

You've introduced the slavery strawman as an excuse to discount federalism and the principles of a republican form of government.

You've parroted an absurd assertion by Tim Russert ("We’d still have slavery") in an attempt to delegitimize Paul's retelling and interpretation of American principles and deficiencies.

As for regurgitating a Claremont Institute book review as a counter to my characterization of Lincoln as an authoritarian, it misses the mark completely.

Lincoln was an authoritarian by any definition and committed abhorrent crimes against humanity and the constitution.

Some (from a long list):
19. Supporting a conscription law.

20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.

31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.

32. Illegally declaring martial law.

33. Illegally blockading ports.

34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.

35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.

36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.

37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.

38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.

39. Confiscating private property and firearms.

40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.

42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.

43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.

44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.

45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.

46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.

47. Censoring all telegraph communication.

48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.

52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.

53.Closing churches and arresting ministers.

54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.

55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.

58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).

62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.

64. Using civilians as hostages.

70. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today, (Not least among them Hitler).

With little hyperbole Abe is compared to Saddam

[pavelChe]

To get back to the original article -- can't Saakashvili be seen as playing the part of the proud democratic leader forced into authoritarianism while trying to hold his nation together militarily in textbook anti-secessionist Lincolnian fashion?

Or better yet -- can't South Ossetia be seen as Texas in the Mexican-American war being ripped from its mother state by a dangerous form of nationalism called Manifest Destiny?

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

What's with the agenda?

I'm pointing out examples of American authoritarianism and you seem to be defending or ignoring the examples by playing a gotcha game of ad hominem moral relativism.

You've introduced the slavery strawman as an excuse to discount federalism and the principles of a republican form of government.

Don't hand me this nonsense.

YOU introduced a Ron Paul Manifesto in its entirety...I responded with a blanket appraisal of Ron Paul - which includes issues that he would rather overlook.

YOU introduced the phrase "Lincoln and his bloody war," and in that context, the issue of slavery becomes a strawman. How convenient.

YOU introduced a supporting work that I consider flawed, and responded in kind.

Any opportunity to introduce a plug for Ron Paul - sounds like an agenda to me.

NOW you can get back to the topic at hand.