Customer Reviews

The Twilight of Democracy

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The prognosis was correct and it provides analysis of trends and realities clear to CIA analyists and our undemocratic political leadership of the US 'oiligarchy' and elites elsewhere. A worthwhile read for those not wearing rose colored glasses -- not for a high school civics class. He underrates, perhaps, the potential importance of class when globalization is making Western workers poorer and alienating those in the 3rd world from their land and family systems of social support. The demographics of youth in the middle east and 3rd world might also get more attention for the affinity for violence and frustration. Still, well worthwhile for a thoughtful reader.

Patrick Kennon's _Twilight_ takes a rather arrogant tone regarding the awaited demise of electoral governing and the professional political class. His thumbnail descriptions of leaders provide effective context to that theme, but their interspersion between polemics can be distracting. While his conclusions may not be in error, his polemical style and anti-religious diatribes sabotage any persuasive arguments presented by such minimal analytical insight that he provides. His anticipated managerial empire is not difficult to envision, but given human nature, it is remains to be seen if egotistical dilettantes, abundant in guile if little else, can be relegated to the sidelines without a continuous struggle. This may especially apply if no carefully established procedure for orderly succession exists to thwart clandestine schemers such as Stalin or Hussein.

The prospect of political power attracts all sorts of unscrupulous and ambitious pretenders. (The junior senator-elect from New York and former first-harridan comes to mind.) Institutional compartmentalization can limit the damage that can be inflicted by corrupt officials and judges, but without enforceable formalities, an unaccountable bureaucracy may lack the means to prevent a tyrannical dictatorship. There also remains the question as to whether the public can be reduced to ciphers under the benevolent gaze of a plenary oligarchy. The electoral system benefits from an explicit endorsement by a public that perceives either benefit or detriment under its governors. The current shortcomings appear more the consequence of inadequate information sources to and faulty interpretation by the electors rather than specific institutional defects in the accountability mechanisms. As Danes and British are discovering with the European Community, even bureaucracies staffed with competent directors free from personality cultism leave much to be desired for mere continuity of economic policy. In a crisis involving unanticipated events, such institutions may falter or lose the marginal acquiescence received by the governed as a consequence of perceived remoteness. (As disgusting the spectacle of populism may be, the perils of non-celebrity leadership are typically overlooked.) Unfortunately, leaders abundant in talent, charm and integrity that aspire political power are decidedly rare, while mediocre charlatans proliferate. The bureaucracy that Kennon foresees seems unlikely to attract or seek more of the former over the latter than current (albeit dismal) electoral contests. Although Kennon is probably right that whatever future forms of government are deemed optimal will be called "democracy" and will differ from current forms, such a prediction is not terribly unique or insightful.

This former CIA bureaucrat takes a look at countries around the globe and their political situations. He analyzes what makes a country first, second or third world in status. This bureaucrat comes to the conclusion that an efficient, honest, well-developed bureaucracy is what propels a country into the first world. Yes, he knows that people hate bureaucrats and he shows why people do. People like amateurs and heroes over professionals and experts such as bureaucrats. For instance, armies used to be based on heroism and aristocratic status, but in modern times, the bureaucratic army wins more battles than one's that are based on courage and heroism. One can take men of low social standing and drill them constantly and make them into an efficient war machine.

Bureaucracies are good at achieving simple goals such as winning a war or developing an economy as long as they are not given conflicting goals, are not fighting with other conflicting bureaucracies, and are in a time of crisis when goals become simpler and necessary for survival. During peacetime, posturing politicians who are amateurs rule, goals become complex, freedom is valued over efficiency. The bureaucracy becomes inefficient.

Kennon has a bureaucrat's contempt for political leaders saying that they represent the politics of the cave. They do not know much compared to bureaucratic experts, but they know how to grandstand and complain about bureaucracies. But complex first world societies need unelected bureaucratic experts to solve society's problems. If these problems are not solved, the society will fall back into the second or third world. First world societies tend to decline when they turn into democracies of groups or special interests and forget about focusing on solely economic goals of prosperity. Identity politics come to the fore and people become more interested in getting "respect" as a group or saving spotted owls rather than having a good economy. Kennon hopes that democracy will go the way of monarchies, meaning that they will only have symbolic power in the future while bureaucrats run the show. Kennon defends the legitimacy of bureaucracies national and international such as the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the WTO. He supports bureaucracies; he does not want to get rid of them.

Second world countries are dominated by authoritarian political leaders who focus on economic goals solely and do not give people much freedom. In this circumstance, political leaders serve a necessary purpose and are not a sideshow to bureaucracies such as in the first world.

Third world countries are dominated by the family and patron client relationships. The family is everything and the nation means nothing to the individual. Bureaucracies and political leaders are weak. The freedom of the individual is strong either as a good citizen or as a criminal. Scams and corruption increase. The only efficient bureaucracy is in the military. Military leaders often become political leaders who try to lead the nation into the second world by developing the economy.

Kennon thinks that becoming a first world country is simply a matter of having a good bureaucracy. He does not venture into issues that Richard Lynn covers such as how race, intelligence, and national wealth are inextricably linked to explain why some countries have better standards of living than others. He is for assimilation and envisions the day when Asians and Hispanics will be presidents in the first world US and will consider themselves American. Tribal democracies such as Apartied South Africa and Israel which only politically enfranchise the dominant group are of the second world. However, he does mention that South Africa has the chance of falling into the third world after Apartied.

Fundamentalist religious movements such as the one currently in Islam may threaten first world societies, but Kennon thinks that such movements eventually burn themselves out. Islam was progressive and open minded in the Middle Ages; it may become that way again. Fundamentalism gives people comfort in times of radical change.

Very enlightening examination of large-scale social processes that are otherwise hightly obscured by the common, "tribal" political-economic precepts, prejudice and self-directed propaganda.

The book provides very good framework to analysing where your country is in its "life cycle". The driving force for its development is the balance of power between beaurocracy, private sector and the political sector. The beaurocracy (in the positive Max Weber's sense) is the basis for achieving the long-term goals of the society; the private sector provides for the freedom and initiative; and the only major role of the polititians is to control the beaurocracy and to create obstacles. The different positions of these 3 forces clasifies the country in any of the following categories: First World (prevailing private sector and beaurocracy); Second World (prevailing political sector and beaurocracy); and,Third World with prevailing political and private sectors. Very clear thought, with a lot of understanding about how the world functions. The examples from the history of different countries are secondary to the main line and should not offend the readers (at least the two times my country was mentioned I did not like the context!). Very interesting and provocative.