“Businesses run the world, they are better managed, more efficient at all levels, promote innovation and discoveries, and deliver better services and products than any other organization, notably governments and states’ administrations.” This is a hardly caricatured representation of the worldview we have increasingly known since at least the middle of the 1980s, that bloomed and became entrenched in the 1990s and in the first decade of the 21st century. Yet, what if it were now showing signs of being questioned, besides protests movements? And which signals can we find that could indicate the possibility of cracks in the hegemony of this idea?
A first signal comes from what we could call an elite group, itself benefiting from the hegemony. The Henry Jackson Initiative For Inclusive Capitalism (HJI), launched on 14 May 2012, although focusing on capitalism as a system and aimed at the private sector, seeks to promote a better capitalism, because:
“we believe that a broad-based acceptance of basic ethical norms is necessary if any form of capitalism is to be widely accepted. Otherwise, the system itself will be discredited and ultimately destroyed, whether by internal failures, external pressures or both—or by some other unforeseen and undesirable force.” (HJI Task Force’s report, p.6)
It promotes the vision held by neoliberalism, according to which “capitalism has made the world healthier, richer and freer than previous generations could have imagined. People in capitalist societies live longer than their forebears, earn more and are better educated,” (report, p.4), but also take stocks of many of its shortcomings and adverse impacts. By doing so, it seeks to only bring “modifications” (p.6) to the current system, not to completely change it. Yet, its very efforts will contribute to achieve something different from what we knew. Furthermore, the HJI shows that it is now possible to question the dominant ideology without being marginalized. This signal, as the next one, would most probably not have emerged if the various protests movements that took place worldwide, from the “Arab Awakening” to Occupy, had not occurred, as indeed underlined p.26 of the report. Interestingly, the HJI also specifies that its focus is the private sector, thus acknowledging a difference between the mission of governments and states’ administrations on the one hand, and the role of businesses on the other, setting a clear line between both, in contradiction with the previous worldview:
We decidedly take no position as to exactly what level of taxation and regulation best balances the ability of government to do what it must without harming the desire of entrepreneurs and businesses to do what they can.” (my emphasis – report p.6)
The signal is all the more important that the HJI it is a child of the British and transatlantic think tank the Henry Jackson Society (see notably its history and its advisory council), and relayed by famous and recognized media, such as The Economist, as shows the interview of Lady Lynn Forrester de Rothschild, a crucial member of the HJI task force, and among others, Chief Executive of E.L. Rothschild LLC as well as a Director at The Economist, on “Capitalism and society in 2013” (video, The Economist’s World in 2013, Gala dinner on December 6th 2012).
A second signal comes from the website OnlineMBA.com, which has as “larger mission to educate prospective MBA students, not only about their options for online programs, but also about current trends in business”.* As part of its education purpose, this website produces videos (Minute MBA), and one of its latest production is titled “3 reasons why government shouldn’t be run like a business” (see here for a transcript):
In the words of one member of the video production team:
“This is an independent research project. We are not connected and affiliated by any school, organization or government. Moreover, we are privately funded by contributors and researchers who have volunteered their time to create this resource and other resources within our site.”*
Besides being interesting and very well done, this video – and it can also be taken as a perfect example of the diversity of ways we can use to deliver products – is a direct signal that cracks in the neoliberal ideology exist and seem to spread. Interestingly, once more, it comes from one of those very groups – the private sector – that were meant to benefit most from the paradigm. Furthermore, it is promoted by the young generation and within the field of education, which is one of the institutions in society where norms are inculcated.
The existence of those signals does not mean that everything will change overnight, nor even that the still current worldview is meant to disappear. We could witness a possible polarization taking place in the Western World and elsewhere, as suggested previously, but with changes compared with what was noted in November 2012. Either the polarization will be kept in check and a more peaceful evolution will take place, as the signals here suggests, or the polarization will happen, but with a positioning of actors that could be seen as surprising from the point of view of the worldview questioned. The indications reported here could also disappear, not be followed by others, leaving the ideology more entrenched… for a while, as it is the historical destiny of worldviews to be born, bloom and then disappear. In any case, this issue must continue to be monitored.
* Red (team) Analysis was contacted by the video production team of onlineMBA, who suggested, rightly, that I could be interested in this video. Quotes are taken from the email exchanges with them.
Horizon Scanning for National Security – Batman’s Gotham City with an international twist? The world is being profoundly reshaped: China’s global land grab, the battle for the Arctic and the importance of extreme environments for resources, a fast changing unsettled Middle-East, the importance of Central Asia, the return of a pre-World War I type of capitalist world, and a worrying question regarding Europe, exemplified by Greece. What if, rather than demonstrations leading to revolutions, we were facing a slow collapse of the state? Against this backdrop, the rosy utopian images of the future still produced by some (see last article at the bottom of the front page) appear to be very out-dated, the future as it was seen in the 1970s and 1980s, much less adapted to current dynamics than Batman’s Gotham City to which an international twist would need to be added. Why such differing visions, why such discrepancies? The answer lies partly in those models we use to understand the world and the article “hot models, hard questions” is definitely a must read.
In this post we shall finish investigating the second level of analysis of the Kantian framework, i.e. how states in their relationships with one another and also with their citizens should behave in their pursuit of democracy and if this leads to war or not, as could happen in the case of Syria, and finally look at the third level, humankind.
The remaining part of this article is for our members and those who purchased special access plans. Make sure you get real analysis and not opinion, or, worse, fake news. Log in and access this article.
If the situation in the Middle East definitely requires to be paid attention to, the East and the Far East deserve no less, as Japan seeks to change its constitution, India continues to try asserting and expanding its role, and Central Asia is increasingly entrenched as a crucial geopolitical node. Meanwhile, news and studies regarding the adverse impact of climate change are at odds with some trends in energy security and with the tale according to which “rich countries” will be less hurt, while monetary policies, notably quantitative easing, remain controversial.
In the Kantian framework, different kinds of agents pursue democracy at three levels: the individuals within a nation, the states in their relationships with one another and also with their citizens, and humankind. In this article, we shall look at how individuals within a nation should behave if they want to truly abide by democratic principles.
Should they rebel and when? Should they support war, and which type of war if any?
This article is the second part of a series reflecting upon Democracy, especially its link to war, in the framework of events, notably regarding Syria, Egypt and the “Arab Awakening” but also the 2010s European and American opposition movements. The first article can be read here, and the next and final one here.
The remaining part of this article is for our members and those who purchased special access plans. Make sure you get real analysis and not opinion, or, worse, fake news. Log in and access this article.
While a violent battle to win the minds through information, misinformation, manipulation, and deception is at work around Syria, the international order is changing out of the interactions between players. Will the post-1945 order prove resilient enough or are we heading towards a system that will look more like a 19th century Europe, or shall we see emerging something more complex including elements of “Middle-Age geopolitics and geostrategy”? The dire state of public finances across many countries, poverty and inequality, which have not disappeared far from it, the widespread distrust in governments existing in many Western countries, on the one hand, the evolution of the war in Syria, on the ground, on the other, are elements that should not be forgotten but, on the contrary, integrated to take any informed decision in the present and to attempt any judgement on the future.
Increasingly, the world seems to be fertile in war, upheavals and violent events, surrounded by heated controversies and very often by an absence of neutrality in the media.
The international community is divided. As a result, informed and balanced judgements are difficult to achieve. Taking political decisions is thus even harsher than usual, bringing to the fore the cruel dilemma that are so often at the core of international politics.
In 2013, the Tamarod (Tamarrud) movement in Egypt rose and succeeded, ushering real-life battles and a corresponding debate regarding the democratic or non-democratic credentials of the resulting Egyptian government, with considerable impacts in terms of international perceptions, alliances and actions. Ukraine saw domestic protests with then unforeseen consequences.
In the same year, the battle of ideas and principles surrounding the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the international responses that ought to follow was bitter, embedded in psychological warfare.
“DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!!” by Charles Henry Alston – Office for Emergency Management. Office of War Information. Domestic Operations Branch. News Bureau. (06/13/1942 – 09/15/1945) – National Archives at College Park
In this light, it is useful – and necessary – to stop, think and reflect on the idea of democracy and its relationship to violence and ultimately war. What is a democracy? What does it mean to behave and act according to its principles? What does it mean for a citizen and what does it mean for a state? Are democracies more peaceful than other regimes? How should democracies act and react in the international world?
Henri Kissinger wrote that “The idea that peace depends above all on promoting democratic institutions has remained a staple of American thought to the present day. Conventional American wisdom has consistently maintained that democracies do not make war against each other.”[0] The idea according to which “democracies almost never fight each other” has been studied from different theoretical perspectives by many scholars in International Relations. For example, Singer and Small used an empirical framework in 1976 and 1982, Doyle reintroduced the Kantian philosophy for its explanatory and predictive power in 1983, Lake attempted to use a model of micro-economy in 1991, and a host or articles followed suite in the 1990s.[1] Multiple explanatory reasons have been given, which are never completely satisfying.
We shall first review the concepts involved and define a theoretical framework. We shall then analyze and answer the question according to the different levels where democracy is practiced: the individuals within a nation, the states in their relationships with one another and also with their citizens, and humankind.[2]
Concepts and Theoretical Framework
First, what is Democracy? Empirically, it is a relative concept, changing with time and space: for example, the American Democracy of the beginning of the 19th century, accepting slavery, or France, before 1945, when women were forbidden to vote, would not be considered nowadays as democracies. Democracy is a social construct and does not exist per se.
Second, the adjective “future” refers to something that is neither present nor past, to something that does not exist yet, if we place ourselves in the western linear definition of time. Even by restricting in such a way the concept of future, to which future are we referring? Do we think about tomorrow, to the next ten years or to what will happen in a millennium?
Third, the concept of war is equally difficult to define. Do we take into consideration any “direct, somatic violence between states?”[3] Do we include economic warfare? Do we consider domestic warfare such as rebellion, revolution? Do we include asymmetric warfare and conflicts between different categories of actors (states and would-be state actors for example)?
Do we introduce the quantitative threshold criteria often used of “at least 1000 battle fatalities?”[4] Or shall we prefer the criteria used by the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset (1946 – 2012, v.4-2013 – see version history), according to which “A conflict, both state-based and non-state, is deemed to be active if there are at least 25 battle-related deaths per calendar year in one of the conflict’s dyads.”
Alternatively, shall we prefer a definition that focuses on process and conflict dynamics, as chosen by the Conflict Barometer of the University of Heidelberg, and according to which “a political conflict is a positional difference, regarding values relevant to a society (the conflict items), between at least two decisive and directly involved actors, which is being carried out using observable and interrelated conflict measures that lie outside established regulatory procedures and threaten core state functions, the international order or hold out the prospect to do so” (2012: 120).
From The HIIK Conflict barometer 2020 – p.12. From The HIIK Conflict barometer 2020 – p.13.Volent conflicts in 2020 – The HIIK Conflict Barometer 2020
The difficulty is increased by the presence of the adjective future: Future wars may take a form we are unable to imagine nowadays.
Finally, an action implies in turn an agent. Which agent tries to reach or abide by democracy? Is it the individual, some group of individuals, the state, the international system?
Our theoretical framework must allow us to define our concepts while taking into account evolution, change and progress. Thus, rather than focusing on forms that are relative, we must strive to identify the core principle, the idea behind the multiple and contingent forms.
Following on Doyle, Kantian philosophy answers best our criteria: first, by distinguishing between the phenomenal and the noumenal world, Kant answers the problem of relativity and change.[5] Second Kant takes into account the notion of progress and of dynamism. Third, as most non-realist scholars recognize, Kant best explains – and predicts – the linkage between democracy (as a representative republic) and war.[6] In this framework we can now redefine our question.
The political system “Democracy” is based upon the principle of universal right, itself
“an application of the universal principle of morality.”[7]
It believes in morally autonomous equal in rights, and free individuals. It is defined as
A constitution allowing the greatest possible freedom in accordance with laws, which ensure that the freedom of each can coexist with the freedom of all the others.[8]
From those principles come the political institutions toward which a democracy should tend: a representative republic allowing for the separation of the legislative, executive and judiciary powers.
Thus to live in a democracy and to be democratic, or to become a democracy, cannot only be about a form. This means, among others, that the current focus on elections is inadequate. It demands to adopt and practice the democratic principles. This, in turn, can only be made if adherence to the universal principles of rights and morality is practiced. It is meant to be an ongoing effort and pursuit because, whatever the agent (individual, movement, party, group, state) considered, this agent is every day confronted to new choices when s/he can decide – as a free agent – to act democratically or not.
The definition we shall retain for “war” stems from the previous principles. It will be any kind of violence that threatens the principle of universal right and thus the external freedom of human beings (“freedom from any constraint except coercion by law, a freedom which allows each individual to pursue his own ends, whatever they may be, provided that this pursuit leaves the same kind of freedom to all others” Reiss: 22). Domestically, civil strive and internecine violence, the very reasons why human beings entered Democracy as they wanted to avoid them, are thus included. At the level of states, we have interstate wars.
This definition also allows us to include economic warfare. If the economic actions of one state toward another imply violence and are such that they deny external freedom to the members of the other state, this may be considered as an act of economic warfare. For example, we could “imagine” a state (or a powerful economic actor) A pushing a state B by means of tied bilateral aid to abandon its survival traditional agriculture for the monoculture of a product interesting A. The condition of self-dependency into which B would be reduced by accepting such a proposal would already question the external freedom of its citizens. Nevertheless, let us assume that B genuinely believes in cooperation. Now, if A decides for any reason not to buy anymore from B, this decision might be considered as economic warfare: the citizens of B are exposed to the violence of starvation and death. Their external freedom has been denied. We can point out too that A has respected neither the principles of universal right nor the categorical imperative. This questions obviously directly the use of GMOs and the practice of companies such as Monsanto, as well as the patents on traditional medicines. Ecological warfare can be examined in the same manner. Similarly, conflicts across levels can be included.
Now that our concepts are defined, we shall analyze the question through the different kinds of agents who pursue democracy: the individuals within a nation, the states in their relationships with one another and also with their citizens, and humankind.[9]
[0] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, (New York: Touchstone, 1994), p.44.
[1] Singer and Small quoted in Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War Order, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), Michael Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs” Part I and II, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1983, vol. 12, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 205-235 & pp. 323-353; David Lake, “Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War,” American Political Science Review, March 1992, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 24-37; James Lee Ray, “Does Democracy cause Peace?”, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1998. 1:27-46.
[2] See Immanuel Kant “Perpetual Peace: a Philosophical Sketch,” in Kant:Political Writings edited by Hans Reiss, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), note p.98. Each level corresponds respectively to the civil right (ius civitatis), the international right (ius gentium) and the cosmopolitan right (ius cosmopoliticum). Note that these levels are very similar to the classical three levels of analysis of international relations. I added the relationship of the state with its citizens to the second level, although not specifically mentioned by Kant, because the agent “state” acts domestically as well as internationally.
[3] Graham Evans & Jeffrey Newham, The Dictionary of World Politics: a Reference Guide to Concepts, Ideas and Institutions, (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992), p. 339.
[4] Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace referring to Small and Singer, p.12.
[5] Doyle, Ibid. For the phenomenal and noumenal worlds, see Hans Reiss, “Introduction,” in Kant: Political Writings edited by Hans Reiss, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 17. The relativity of core values should be studied in broader debates, such as cosmopolitan versus communitarian. The deep beliefs concerning “the permanent nature of man” as writes Pierre Hassner play an important role in the elaboration of theories and should be an interesting axis of research. Yet, this does not imply the validity of theses such as “The Clash of Civilizations” by Huntington: for example, in the Chinese philosophy, it may be interesting to study if Taoism versus Confucianism can be considered as a version of Cosmopolitanism versus Communitarianism. Similarities can be found between religions (compare for example the 40 days Jesus Christ spent in the desert and the temptation he had to fight with the meditation of Gautama (future Bouddha) and the way Mâra (Evil) tried to tempt him or compare again the messianic dimension of Vishnou with the concept of Boddhisatva, with the judeo-christian Messiah, and with the Islam concept of prophetes). Correspondances exist between mythologies (compare for example the Egyptian Thot with the Latin/Greek Hermes/Mercury and with the Norse Odin) and folktales. See also the astonishing similarities of the Kantian and the Buddhist cosmologies. All these similarities are contrary to irreconcilable differences of values between civilizations.
[6] Kant, Perpetual Peace, First Definitive Article, pp. 100-101.
Besides being a humanitarian disaster, the Syrian war is redrawing the strategic outlook of the region and presents serious and rising challenges to regional and global peace and stability. Meanwhile, the fog of war makes foresight and warning more difficult.
This 2013 report presents three main scenarios (leading to ten sub-scenarios) for the future of Syria and prospects for peace within the next five years, after describing the state of play and the actors on the Syrian battlefield. To consider the fog of war, it identifies indicators to monitor that impact the likelihood of each scenario and sees the scenarios as a dynamic set, where one potential future can morph into another out of an evolving state of play.
The series of posts on Syria, published between 15 April and 8 July 2013, were revised and adapted to constitute this report.
GDPR, Privacy and Cookies
The Red Team Analysis Society uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. This includes cookies from third party social media websites if you visit a page which contains embedded content from social media. Such third party cookies may track your use of the Red Team Analysis Society website.
If you click on "Accept", you accept our policy, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Red Team Analysis Society website and this will close this notice. Accept AllGDPR and Cookie Policy
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
“Businesses run the world, they are better managed, more efficient at all levels, promote innovation and discoveries, and deliver better services and products than any other organization, notably governments and states’ administrations.” This is a hardly caricatured representation of the worldview we have increasingly known since at least the middle of the 1980s, that bloomed and became entrenched in the 1990s and in the first decade of the 21st century. Yet, what if it were now showing signs of being questioned, besides protests movements? And which signals can we find that could indicate the possibility of cracks in the hegemony of this idea?
