Let them eat freedom

Fareed Zakaria's book is a pro-establishment look at globalization and its consequences. In contrast to Amy Chua (see my review of her book "World on Fire"), Zakaria isn't even mildly critical of globalization. On the contrary, he supports it to the hilt, from a very self-consciously establishmentarian, even "bourgeois" standpoint. At one point, he exclaims: "Without a bourgeoisie, no democracy". Unfortunately for Zakaria, not everyone agrees. In nation after nation, democracy has been used to vote in populist and vaguely left-leaning governments. In other words, governments which may threaten the gains made by the globalist "bourgeoisie".

What should the American establishment do to stop this? That's the real point under debate in "The future of freedom". Of course, Zakaria doesn't quite put it that way. Instead, he begins by pointing out that "democracy" and "freedom" aren't necessarily synonymous. This, of course, is true. The Nazis used the democratic process to take power in Germany. Hamas is a popularly elected government. Russia has democracy, but very little "freedom". Zakaria calls such a state of affairs "illiberal democracy". But what exactly does Zakaria mean by "freedom"? While he mentions equality before the law or an independent judiciary, what he really wants is protection of private property.

This explains the tendentious character of the author's analysis. He supports dictatorships which carry out market reforms, claiming that these will eventually turn into stable, liberal democracies: South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Chile and even mainland China. He doesn't mention obvious counterexamples. Indonesia carried out market reforms long before it became a democracy, yet its democracy is highly unstable. (Recent events show that Thailand is unstable, as well.) Nor does he mention the salient fact that it was the protests of the people that forced some of these nations to democratize. South Korea comes to mind. Further, most of the "illiberal democracies" mentioned by Zakaria turn out to be threats to globalization or American hegemony: Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, Zimbabwe. He doesn't consider pro-globalist democracies such as the Philippines to be "illiberal". Yet, it's difficult to see how a poor Filipino can possibly have "freedom". To Zakaria, "freedom" really means freedom for global multi-nationals and local market-dominant minorities to protect their private property. (In an afterword to the new edition, he suddenly waxes more positive about Russia. Why? The only reason I can think of is that he wants détente between Russia and the US, and actually thinks it might work. In reality, of course, Russia is even more "illiberal" today than when Putin came to power!)

The real agenda of the book is also revealed when Zakaria discusses the present state of US democracy. Zakaria wants to go back to the situation as it looked like about 60 years ago: powerful congressional committees, deliberations behind closed doors, no referenda, no primary elections, real political parties with real leaderships, etc. When discussing "checks and balances", he mentions NGO's and civil society as an important check and balance, but he considers the business community to be a part of civil society! Further, he wants potentially unpopular decisions to be taken out of the hands of elected politicians altogether, in much the same way as the Federal Reserve is already making important decisions about the economy all by itself. The point of all this, he wants us to believe, is to break the power of lobby groups and special interests, make politicians more responsible, and put some real leadership back in Washington, DC.

That's what they always say, isn't it?

Now, I don't deny that there is a grain of truth in all this: "direct" democracy isn't always the best form of government (even Switzerland has a Supreme Court), many of the lobby groups are unsavoury, and referendum campaigns are often manipulated by elite groups. This, however, is not really the author's point. Why does he mention the business community as a necessary "check and balance", while condemning labour unions as a "special interest"? Why indeed...

What Zakaria really wants is a more streamlined form of "bourgeois" democracy, in which the guys on top (from Groton?) can feel relatively secure from labour unions and other forms of unwanted popular pressure, while safeguarding the sacred right of "private property" (in reality, the power of the banks and multi-nationals). This also explains why he is positive to outright dictators, such as Pinochet, Chiang Kai-shek or even Deng Xiaoping, provided that they "liberalize" the economy, while waxing indignant over democratically elected leaders who take the opposite course.

The people want bread. To all extent and purposes, Fareed Zakaria wants them to eat freedom.