MVRblogs

The Great Experiment by Strobe Talbott (Book Review)

2009-11-13T01:08:00.009-07:00

Strobe Talbott. The Great Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009. 512 pp.

The twin specters of nuclear weapon proliferation and global climate change dominate humanity's horizon. Should either of these eventualities come to pass, the aggregate impact could give rise to the literal end of history. Given our track record—war's historical constancy, coupled with our propensity to insufficiently prepare for the future's contingencies—it is rather easy to yield to pessimistic prognoses which question the long-term viability of the human enterprise. However, Strobe Talbott, in his recent book The Great Experiment, provides a timely antidote to such cynicism. Indeed, Talbott—in full knowledge of the dangers faced by humanity—embarks on an investigation into the history of human society, specifically identifying the key mechanisms by which disparate groups of people find common ground and unite in the interests of attaining a modicum of harmonious living and prosperity. A significant portion of this work is oriented toward ascertaining the particular modes by which peoples have in the course of history managed to forge shared identities, and thereby develop into nations and, occasionally, into empires. From this starting point, Talbott goes on to survey philosophers of the enlightenment; thinkers whose work would prove instrumental in forming the modern field of international relations. Writing with a clear sense of urgency, Talbott goes on to contend that the world must progress beyond the anarchic system of autonomous sovereign states; placing in its stead a new world order where both governance and nationality are globalized. Failure to pursue this goal is to risk unmitigated catastrophe; apropos the twin specters.

Taking the lead of the great liberal theorist Immanuel Kant, Talbott conceives of this incremental progressivism as the transpiration of "trial, error, and compromise," vis-à-vis: The Great Experiment. Historically, developments of this kind generally follow a progressive pattern of small and gradual increments over the course of years, decades and centuries. Given such an elongated historic trajectory, it stands to reason that civilizations, having developed in isolation from one another over hundreds of years, will differ substantively. An important corollary to this for the Western policy makers is that the emphasis on exporting democracy will be slow going, if not entirely intractable. Indeed, this is addressed by both Kant and Talbott in the mutual admission that development to the point of complete amelioration is inherently unrealizable. Nevertheless, the liberal approach to constructing workable mechanisms for global governance can, and arguably does, mitigate—by force if absolutely necessary—the world's discordant elements. Take, as an example, the UN sanctioned intervention the Balkans throughout the 1990s.

Moreover, the most prominent alternative to the liberal view, Hobbesianism, embraces the zero-sum logic of 'war of all against all'. In the contemporary world such an approach to governance is fundamentally untenable; by contrast the only mechanism by which mankind can hope to overcome the threats we face is by way of structuring the rules for governance in positive-sum terms. Where interdependence and cooperation are realizable ends. According to Talbott the United Nations is the institution which possesses the requisite parts for furthering an internationalist governance agenda. And while the UN is an imperfect institution to say the least, it has been effective in some respects; such as the IAEA for instance, a UN organization which has been successful in ensuring compliance to NPT agreements.

Beyond the historical, The Great Experiment progresses into autobiographical account; and it is herein that the argument for global governance takes on a new authoritative weight. Having held the position of US Deputy Secretary of State, Talbott was an active participant in The Great Experiment’s "laboratory". Therein stark realities become glaringly apparent to Talbott, and his colleagues, as they struggled to achieve their policy objectives; yet were continually stymied by unforeseen developments.

In its totality The Great Experiment, is stylistically engaging and intellectually accessible. Furthermore, Talbott is persuasive in advancing the case for liberal internationalism; which is itself a timely development given recent harm that has been done to America's multilateralist credentials due to the recent unilateralism under Bush 43. In many ways, Talbott's work reinvigorates and confers much needed legitimacy upon the liberal approach to international relations. Overall he has done a fine job in advancing a theoretical and pragmatic justification for global governance which is clearly rooted in the positivist tradition. This is no small feat, given the propensity for such ventures in positivism to be plagued by excessive reliance on moral abstractions and a naïve ignorance of mankind's infinite capacity for irrationality. Yet, Talbott has nimbly overcome such stumbling blocks and has provided lay readers with a well-reasoned defense of liberal internationalism.

Attn: Fraser Institute

2009-04-21T12:06:00.003-06:00

ATTN: Fraser Institute
Next time you craft a propaganda video under the guise of "irrefutable logic"--at least make an effort to avoid committing what are blatantly obvious fallacies in reason. (e.g., Because climate change is a historic constant--it follows that the activities of mankind are irrelevant.) ... Unless, of course, you are aiming to be a kind of "agent provocateur"; conditioning your young zealots into a position so unreasonable that the net impact of your campaign will be to further marginalize the anthropogenic climate change sceptics. If that is your aim; kudos!

Though I reckon that is not your aim. In which case, get with the times. Quit sending good money after bad. (You talk about Govt. waste--well your adherence to the promotion of ideologically driven irrationality is just as absurd!) Why not actually engage the core of what is going on in the discourse on climate change? Instead of diverting attention with useless promo videos like this; which are not at all backed up by you websites documents on the issue. Such documents are rooted in tired arguments; reminiscent of where the sceptic argument was about a decade ago. Your efforts are applied toward re-framing the debate into this old mindset. My suspicion, is that to continue along this ideologically--not reality--driven mindset will come to be seen more and more as mindless political blithering. If you keep this up, I suspect that continued corporate financing will only delay the Fraser Institute's inevitable descent into irrelevancy insofar as this issue is concerned.

Water Bubbles Lume Large

2009-01-30T10:53:00.002-07:00

According to the folks from this years World Economic Forum in Davos; the current economic "crisis" pails in comparison to the potential for global chaos posed by ever-increasing demands on the world water supply.

"In many places around the world, we have consistently under-priced water, wasting and overusing it as a result. We have depleted stocks of groundwater at the expense of our future water needs. In effect we, have enjoyed a series of regional water 'bubbles' to support economic growth over the past 50 years or so, especially in agriculture. We are now on the verge of water bankruptcy in many places with no way of paying the debt back. In fact, a number of these regional water bubbles are now bursting in parts of China, the Middle East, the south-western US and India; more will follow. The consequences for regional economic and political stability will be serious."

Link Full Text PDF of Report

-MVR

ExxonMobil -- Entering the Hybrid Car Battery Market?

2008-10-15T22:52:00.001-06:00

It appears that ExxonMobil is entering the car battery market (hybrid car battery market that is).
Perhaps, in so as to take some steps to appease the Rockefeller heirs, who want the company to invest in alternative energy? Or could it be to capitalize on the hybrid market, which according to this Nikkei publication, is set to expand by 16X in 10 years? Whatever the reason it is good to see the world largest private oil firm applying their engineering prowess on developing alternatives--a company with their resources can do great things if they so desire.
-MVR

Pat Buchanan Loved Obama's Convention Speech

2008-09-01T04:02:00.001-06:00

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Fru4dZLGA]

I'm betting that this is a good sign that Obama really is pulling in a great many individuals from the right. Perhaps not -- as I am not sure if Buchanan is still in accord with his former base in the GOP, though if he is, Obama ought to do well come November.

Obama may spell trouble for Alberta Tar Sands

2008-06-24T21:23:00.001-06:00

Obama's clean-oil push could threaten oilsands

Sheldon Alberts, Washington Correspondent , Canwest News Service

Published: Tuesday, June 24, 2008

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed he would break America's addiction to "dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive" oil if he is elected U.S. president - and one of his first targets might well be Canada's oilsands.

A senior adviser to Obama's campaign told reporters it's an "open question" whether oil produced from northern Alberta's oilsands fits with the Democratic candidate's plan to shift the U.S. sharply away from consumption of carbon-intensive fossil fuels.

"If it turns out that those technologies don't advance . . . and the only way to produce those resources would be at a significant penalty to climate change, then we don't believe that those resources are going to be part of the long-term, are going to play a growing role in the long-term future," said Jason Grumet, Obama's senior energy adviser.

Obama is silhouetted by a television light during a campaign visit in Las Vegas Thursday.

Steve Marcus/Las Vegas Sun/Reuters

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Chinese Newspaper Exposes Factory's Forced Child Labour

2008-06-21T03:10:00.002-06:00

"Authorities said Wednesday they had "rescued" more than 100 children from factories in a manufacturing center known for exporting toys, textiles and electronics."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/30/asia/01china.php

The Chinese press may not be free--though cases like this provide hope that the media may be moving toward fulfilling its proper roll; that is to root out corruption and act as check thereon.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Aren't these people a dime a dozen?

2008-06-21T02:55:00.001-06:00

Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television

CHAPEL HILL, NC-Area resident Jonathan Green does not own a television, a fact he repeatedly points out to friends, family, and coworkers-as well as to his mailman, neighborhood convenience-store clerks, and the man who cleans the hallways in his apartment building.

is anybody out there? How long until we start shooting these down like tin cans on a road side fence? (Sattelites Clogging Up Orbits!)

2008-05-19T23:20:00.001-06:00

Its amazing that, thus far, that engineers have managed to keep satelites from colliding with one another. The pic below was rendered by the European Space Agency and it gives you an idea as to how many sattelites man has shot up into space. Here is a synopsis of the situation:

The launch of the first artificial sa tellite by the Soviet Union in 1957 marked the beginning of the utilization of space for science and commercial activity. During the Cold War, space was a prime area of competition between the USSR and USA, reaching its climax with the race to the Moon in the 1960s. In, 1964 the first TV satellite was launched into a geostationary orbit in order to transmit the Olympic games from Tokyo. Later, Russian launch activities declined while other nations set up their own space programs. Thus, the number of objects in Earth orbit has increased steadily - by two hundred per year on average. (ESA)

For more images like this from ESA click here.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Comparison: Democratic Development in Russia v. China

2008-05-14T15:54:00.003-06:00

Democratization within China and Russia provide the world with great insight into the prospects for international democratization. China, the most populous nation on earth, has experienced unprecedented growth in recent decades, accompanied by similar growth in regional and global influence. Russia has similarly experienced extensive economic growth; stabilizing the Russian economy and empowering the Kremlin, which has led to Russians re-asserting their role as a major player on the world stage. These factors, among many others, set Russia and China apart in terms of their potential impact upon future prospects of global democratization. The impact of a successful democracy in either of these two countries would set a historic precedent and would likely become something of a watershed event, especially when viewed in the light of the Cold War; whereas, a failure of democracy over the long term in either or both countries would more than likely present serious problems in the age of ever-accelerating globalization.

Through a comparative analysis of Russia and China this paper seeks to demonstrate that: successful democratic development is strongly rooted in the internal political disposition of a country; while at the same time its development can be either facilitated or hindered according to internal political culture and external political pressures. Understanding the dynamic produced by a country's internal disposition and the external global environment is a complex affair and developing even marginally effective policy strategies to encourage democratization can at times seem futile. However, the competition between competing political systems is not a zero-sum game, and as such those who value democratic principles ought to take an active role in spreading its values. By way of an aggregation of the factors influencing and working against democratization in the two countries, this paper will attempt to demonstrate that future prospects for democratization are riddled with uncertainties. Nevertheless, a world composed of nations rooted in democracy and rule of law provide the best viable framework for positively shaping the world and as such should not be abandoned.

In order to evaluate the democratic tendencies within China and Russia it is important to define what exactly the word "democracy" is meant to describe. According to Bernard Crick, "'Democracy' may be a promiscuous and often purely rhetorical word and certainly not a single value embracing or overriding all other values in all circumstances." Within this paper democracy will be treated as system in which "all [citizens] can participate [in government] if they care (and care they should), but they must then mutually respect the equal rights of fellow citizens within a regulatory legal order that defines, protects, and limits those rights." In other words a conception of democracy rooted in a dualism between: meaningful citizen participation in decision making, largely manifested in the various types of representative democracy; and the provision of liberty to all individuals to the extent that a equilibrium of liberty is achieved, which will theoretically result in a maximization of liberty for each individual. Naturally such a simple conception of democracy is somewhat utopian and purely theoretical. However, it provides a decent framework from which a comparison of elements within the Russian and Chinese polities that either hinder or promote the liberal and lawful tendencies necessary for democracy.

What than is needed within a society to move toward the idealized form of democracy? Larry Diamond, in a recent essay decrying the "resurgence of the predatory state", has identified much of what is missing and must be corrected in infant democracies that are at risk of reverting to, or have already reverted to autocracy. The following are elements which act to hinder democracy and will be discussed in the context of Russia and China: unchecked executive power; and political domination by elites, something which typically leads to "corrupt and unresponsive systems."The following factors, favorable to democratization, will also be evaluated in each case: institutions designed to "induce, enforce, and reward civic behavior"; vertical accountability, as manifest in "dense, vigorous civil societies, with independent organizations, mass media, think tanks,…networks that foster civic norms, pursue the public interest, raise citizen consciousness, break the bonds of clientelism, scrutinize [the government], and lobby for good-governance reforms."; and finally horizontal accountability as manifest in counter corruption and parliamentary oversight committees that are backed by the force of law and comprised of educated professions. Further to this, a review of the external factors involved in democratization within the two countries will be addressed; emphasizing the impact of economic and geographic factors.

Political control within China is concentrated within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP); effectively resulting in an elite dominated system. According to Diamond reforms to such a system can only be achieved by "the internal democratization of political parties through the improvement of their transparency and accessibility and the strengthening of other representative bodies." Interestingly there is evidence that China is in the early phases of internal reform to the CCP. President Hu Jintao for instance referred to democracy as "the common pursuit of mankind" during his 2006 address to the United Nations. In 2007, Premier Wen Jiabao proclaimed that "developing democracy and improving the legal system are basic requirements of the socialist system."The CCP's new pro-democracy talking points are encouraging; however, previous Chinese leaders have evoked "democracy" and gone on to pursue highly undemocratic policy. Most notably, when Mao, advocated a "new democracy" in which the CCP would implement a "democratic dictatorship"; though Mao succeeded only in creating a cult of personality, as well as disastrous experiments in social engineering.

Though the democracy presented by today's CPP leadership appear to have come to a more pragmatic view of democracy and its implementation. Democratization is being treated as something which must occur gradually, perhaps taking a cue from the problems Russia faced following the Soviet Union's collapse due to glasnost and perestroika. According to the economist John L. Thornton "senior Chinese leaders do not welcome the latitude of freedom of speech, press or assembly taken for granted in the West. They say they support the orderly expansion of these rights but focus more on the group and social harmony—what they consider the common good." Whereas those lower on the hierarchy, who are not coached in official CCP talking points, are uncertain as whether the democracy will follow a "guided" path or follow the "standard liberal democratic model". Whatever the end-result of the current CCP policy, potential Chinese democratic development ought to be encouraged by the West. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the West does not have a monopoly on ideas (NB., this is not to say the West should cease to pursue democratic ideals); encouraging a dialogue between East and West as to how mankind as a whole can best organize the so-called "flat world", is of fundamental importance.

The political leadership situation in Russia is rather dismal when compared to China's. Comparing this facet of the two polities requires not so much a review of their "statistical rankings"; rather an analysis of their respective historic democratic trajectories is likely a more fruitful point of comparison. China, as previously discussed, has arguably demonstrated marked improvements toward liberalism over the last two decades. Whereas Russia, since the collapse of the Soviet empire, has faced economic turmoil and political impotence during the 90s; following which time Vladimir Putin came to power and was poised to preside over a new boom in the energy market. His conduct and administration of Russia during this time appears to appeal to base notions of nationalism and has consolidated power into the executive branch. Moreover he has weakened the potential checks on the executive by the other branches and civic institutions; the detrimental effects of such policy are abundantly clear in the following case study.

Tsypkin, in his analysis Russian intelligence services, observes that "Putin himself 'coordinates' the work of [all] the [intelligence] agencies." The difficulty in such an arrangement, beyond the excessive powers embodied in the Putin's office, is the lack of transparency. Legislative oversight of the Federal Security Services (FSS), one of several agencies born out of the splitting up of the KGB, did not exist up until 2005. Since establishing a parliamentary committee in 2005 little has changed, as over two-thirds of its members are former officers of the FSB, KGB, or another intelligence agency. Consequently Putin, a former KGB officer himself, is provided with ample breathing room to conduct all kinds of potentially nefarious and clandestine operations. The obstacles to democratization caused by the failure of Putin and past post-Soviet administrations to effectively demonstrate a break with the KGB past are problematic, as explained by Tsypkin:

The high degree of continuity between the Soviet-era agencies and their Russian successors makes the legacy of the Soviet intelligence and security services—bodies that carried out one of the twentieth century's worst campaigns of mass state terror—crucial for this discussion. The Soviet political leadership always exercised civilian control of a very narrow kind over the intelligence and security apparatus: Joseph Stalin controlled it singlehandedly, while his successors did the same in a more collegial fashion, but throughout their history these agencies operated in complete secrecy and, unconstrained by legality or publicity, answered to no one save top political leaders. The responsibilities of these agencies were extremely broad: from the traditional missions of intelligence and counterintelligence, to the regime's political security, to control of all forms of self-expression, and, under Stalin, even to the design and development of weapons.

While Putin's actions are largely perceived as being despotic, some argue that the consolidation of power into a strong executive is in fact a necessary step on the path toward democracy. Russian author Dmitri Trenin for instance points out that Putin has presided over "eight years of steady economic growth". Trenin readily admits that the economic boom has been driven largely by high energy prices, but goes on to argue that Putin's policies during the boom have helped create a middle-class, a group of people who eventually will demand "rule of law." In terms of identifying the creation of a middle-class as a necessary boon for democratization, Trenin is in good company. Over two millennia ago Aristotle identified the value in "the mean" as well:

The best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant.

Such assessments crediting Putin's with expanding the middle class may in the end prove accurate. Furthermore Putin's most recent decision not to seek an amendment to the constitution to allow for his continuing on as Russia's president beyond the two term limit is a good sign; especially considering his insurmountable popularity among the Russian citizenry. Though even in this instance Putin's apparent adherence to the constitution may in fact be a shrewd political calculation, as he may be empowering the Prime Minister's offices with new powers; an office which he is slated to hold as per his instructions to his hand-chosen presidential successor, Dmitry Medvedev. Through such maneuvering Putin may have simply bypassed the constitution to avoid tarnishing Russia's reputation, all the while remaining the de facto Czar.

Potential future democratic developments within China aside; today's China continues to rank among the lowest in the world in terms of freedom and human rights. A recent "Freedom House" report ranks China as 71^st out of 176 countries in terms of political rights and civil liberties. Western governments, institutions and citizens ought not to feel obliged to ignore the very worst of China's abuses based solely on account of the CPP's admonishing us to patience based on their plan for "gradual democratization". It is important to hold the Chinese leaders accountable to what they say, particularly for those in positions of influence who enjoy the luxury of free speech; as the risks associated with speaking out for the ordinary Chinese is to risk facing the full force of a police state. This truth is known all too well by individuals like Hu Jia, a Chinese AIDS awareness activist and prisoner of conscience, facing up to three and a half years in prison for what amounts to "thought crimes". The upcoming, highly anticipated, Summer Olympic games in China presents potential opportunities and risks in encouraging Chinese reform to policy. For instance Newsweek reported in late March that the recent protests in Tibet have led a violent nationalist driven crackdown by Chinese police. Given the oppressive nature of China's policy toward Tibetan nationalists and their religion, the Chinese violence must not be condoned. However, the West ought to take this opportunity to implore the moderate factions of the CPP to take a stand against such a crackdown, and provide conditions for the ethnic Tibetans to form vertical civil institutions. It seems unlikely that the moderate voices will win out in this discussion, given Chinese response to Olympic protests, though similar agitation will help keep the pressure on the Chinese to further democratize.

Russian civil institutions are in many ways not unlike China's, especially in terms of the state domination of mass media outlets. Western media outlets have likewise criticized the Russian government for human rights abuses. The Putin administration's undemocratic policy toward constraining freedom of the press in particular has been highly criticized.

However, there is a key difference between the two, that being the electoral systems of the two countries. While China has a limited electoral system, relegated to the rural population and small local municipalities; the Russia Federation was designed to allow for civic participation, through regular federal and regional elections. However, Putin in keeping with his concentrating power within the Presidency has taken steps to render the Federated system ineffective, as described by Stoner-Weiss in the following excerpt:

February 2006 marks the first anniversary of Russia's clear turn away from democracy. The key event was the enactment, in early 2005, of a law abolishing the popular election of governors in Russia's 89 provinces. This formal rejection of the electoral principle came after four years of steadily growing limitations on democracy under President Vladimir Putin, years that had seen a narrowing of the freedoms to speak and publish, to associate, and to be immune from arbitrary searches and seizures. But the actual elimination of 89 elective offices was a definitive step off the path of democratic consolidation.

Stoner-Weiss goes on to debunk Putin's supposed justifications for his policy, citing that he proceeded to leave the majority of the "purportedly corrupt governors" in their office. In a more recent analysis by Stoner-Weiss and McFaul, they note that the reversion to autocracy has increased to the extent that "many of Putin's defenders, including some Kremlin officials, have given up the pretense of characterizing Russia as a 'managed' or 'sovereign' democracy. Instead, they contend that Russia's democratic retreat has enhanced the state's ability to provide for its citizens." The authors go on to question the legitimacy of such a claim:

Is it right to think, as Putin apparently does, that autocracies tend to govern better than democracies? In 1968, Samuel P. Huntington wrote approvingly of the Soviet state's ability to govern its vast domain.1 A little more than two decades later, however, that state would lie in ruins, hollowed out to the point of collapse by decades of progressive exhaustion. Left behind to sift through the debris was a population sunk in poverty and beleaguered by numerous social and economic ills. Whatever else it may have been, Sovietism was obviously not a successful development model.

Advancing the argument further, Stoner-Weiss and McFaul rightly identify that "capitalist democracies have proven more enduring...relying on bureaucratic and organizational (infrastructural capacity rather than force to ensure the allegiance of their populations... states that rely heavily on force (or despotic power) but which lack significant infrastructural supports are by nature precarious." In light of such analysis, it reasonable to conclude that Russia's move back to autocracy has in many ways lowered its democratic achievements relative to China to the extent that China may be positioned for real democratic change in the future; while Russia will need either to continue down the path of autocracy or have to face the prospects of correcting the mistakes of the Putin regime. For these reasons an argument advocating conservative and gradual democratization is perhaps best suited for democratization in authoritarian nations like China and Russia. Though before solid conclusions can be drawn, further examination of the economy ought to be taken into account.

China's double digit economic growth in recent decades is unparalleled in world history, leading many to conclude China will overtake the West as the dominant world power. Given their poor record the historian Neil Ferguson for instance has stated that the 20^th century was "the descent of the West and a reorientation of the world toward the East". Others such as political scholar John Ikenberry contend that while the USA itself may be overtaken by China, Western civilization as a whole is poised to remain the most dominant force in the globe for the better part of the next century. Moreover, if global institutions such as the WTO, the OECD, and the UN are strengthened and kept open, the peaceful rise of China could prove a boon to humanity as a whole. These global institutions, established in the post WWII era, are predicated on notions of openness and rule of law.

Unlike the imperial systems of the past, the Western order is built around rules and norms of nondiscrimination and market openness, creating conditions for rising states to advance their expanding economic widely in terms of whether the material benefits that are generated accrue disproportionately to the leading state or are widely shared. In the Western system, the barriers to economic participation are low, and the potential benefits are high. China has already discovered the massive economic returns that are possible by operating within this open-market system.

Ikenberry goes on to conclude that China's current economic productive mode will inevitably necessitate its joining the so-called "liberal order". Though China's willingness to embrace such institutions have yet to be fully realized, as expressed in a report from US policy makers:

Political liberalization and respect for human rights in China has lagged behind expectations and what the Chinese people themselves deserve. Successive U.S. administrations have argued that maintaining normal relations with China would promote both economic and political reforms there. This sentiment was clearly articulated by President George W. Bush's future national security adviser and secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, in February 2000: ''. . . trade in general can open up the Chinese economy and, ultimately, its politics too. This view requires faith in the power of markets and economic freedom to drive political change, but it is a faith confirmed by experiences around the globe."

It is likely that China's pace in reform will not perfectly meet the West's preferred timeframe; arguably, they should also be given leeway based on their sheer size, a country comprised of more than a billion people will inevitably face many barriers to stable reform. Though a thorough analysis of China's current policy demonstrates that the chances of its democratizing are significant.

Unlike China, Russia economic mode of production is not at this time in a position to easily integrate into the world economic order. While perhaps not officially an "oil rentier state", Russia in shares many of its failings. According to Sandbakken, oil rentier states:

Have specific features that make them unlikely to become consolidated democracies. It narrows down the rentier state framework to three such features: first, that rentier states do not rely on taxation for income and thus are released from democratic obligations to their taxpayers; second, that the state spends oil revenues on placating and repressing its population; and third, that the social structure in rentier states leaves very little room for democratic opposition.

Early in Putin's regime revenue from oil enabled his administration to reinvigorate the ineffective bureaucracy of the Russian state. Yet at the same time Putin has stifled democratic institutions, as discussed previously, and also established dangerous precedents for Russia's ultimate sustainability. This is particularly so given that the boom is fuelled by energy, which is infamous for its extreme volatility.

The passage of time will be the ultimately determiner as to the ultimate success or failure of either country to achieve stable democratic forms. It is also important to recognize, as with any comparative analysis in the social sciences, there is no "one size fits all"; the most that can be achieved is a delineation of social trends and patterns. Such knowledge can be put to purposeful use however. By informing policy makers as to what they may want to be aware of when they are forced to make decisions on uncertain issues. Moreover, in the case of this particular comparison, it enables active and engaged citizens to come to grips with the state of things in the world; and it is within such understanding that citizens are empowered to effectively participate in the global polity.

NOTES

Aristotle’s Politics: Analysis

2008-05-03T19:35:00.001-06:00

Ancient Athens was home to some of the greatest minds the world has ever known. Arguably, one of the most important individuals to have shared his insights with the rest of humanity is Aristotle. Perhaps the most lasting of Aristotle's contributions were his writings on Politics and the nature of man. For Aristotle, "man is by nature a political animal." This paper seeks to develop a deeper understanding of Aristotle, his view on the politics of mankind, and an understanding of the context of his time in which the work was produced. This understanding will be achieved through a review of scholarly material on the life of Aristotle and an analysis of two excerpts from Politics, in particular portions concerning the polis and democracy.

Aristotle was born in Stagerius, a Greek settlement in Thrace of central Macedon. His father was court physician to Amyntas II, who sat on the Macedonian throne and was grandfather of Alexander "the Great"; incidentally this family connection would lead to Aristotle's tutoring of Alexander. It is thought that Aristotle's education was initiated with education in science and medicine under the tutelage of his father, though most of his learning occurred under Plato in the Academy of Athens. Though Aristotle's initial training in medicine is often considered to be a root to the marked conflict between Plato's metaphysics and Aristotle's emphasis on scientific observations. Evidently this "warring of two great minds" was fruitful for Aristotle, as he would go on to great insights into the physical sciences, most importantly in biology, and within the more Platonic field of metaphysics, where his credits include establishing frameworks considered foundational to understanding man's political and moral nature.

The extent of our knowledge of Aristotle beyond the few aforementioned biographical details, some of which themselves may be mythologized, is limited and in recent years the accuracy of his authorship has even come into question. Jacob Klein, in his introduction to Aristotle recalls an apt elucidation of our knowledge on Aristotle: "As regards Aristotle himself, as regards the circumstances and the course of his life, suffice it to say: Aristotle was born, spent his life in philosophizing, and died." While this statement is clearly facetious and purposefully provocative, a significant element of truth is probable; the authorship of some Aristotelian treatises, including books IV-VI of Politics, may in fact belong to his successor Theophrastus. In Master's analysis of Aristotle's texts and the history of their transmission he presents primary source evidence from other thinkers from Antiquity and delineates several credible arguments based on the fractured continuity of the text itself. A summation of the key elements that cast doubt upon some of Aristotle's work consist of: the texts were in question were essentially unavailable for the span of 180 years, yet elements of Politics once it was compiled by Andronicus of Rome appear to include significant similarity with Theophrastus and disunity with elements of Aristotle's philosophy; the overly repetitive and confusing continuity of the texts themselves have led many scholars, prior to the authorship question coming to fro, to question the order in which they were compiled; the Roman Senator Cicero's comparison of Aristotle and Theophrastus could account for some of the confusion in logic that appears in the text, implicating that the rightful author of some of the works was Theophrastus; and the most compelling factor involves the compilation of the texts by the Roman Andronicus, who's bias towards the Imperialist hegemony on ideas prevalent in the day, would benefit by attributing the texts of Theophrastus to those works of someone as prolific as Aristotle. While the relevance of an investigation into the true authorship may prove, in the end, arcane, it is nonetheless in keeping with the methods Aristotle himself encouraged. Or as Master's, in his conclusion to his investigation argues:

Like the Bible, the intellectual power and status of classical philosophy is only confirmed by an open-minded and scholarly analysis of its origins. Such a procedure is all the more justified by Aristotle's own method, which combines study of the "growth" of a thing with emphasis on its "end" or "perfection" as something transcending material causation.

Within book I Aristotle discusses communities as being established in the interest of achieving some good.

Aristotle approaches the subject based on the assessment that a community organized in a state is the natural order of things; he illustrates by way of deducing the characteristics of the political state down to the lowest element, which he concludes is the family which grows into much larger groups:

The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men's everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas 'companions of the cupboard,' and by Epimenides the Cretan, 'companions of the manger.' But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled 'with the same milk.' And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood. ... When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the

"Tribeless, lawless, heartless one, "

whom Homer denounces- the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.

Aristotle's focus on the community and its aim for achieving what is good is fundamental to understanding his works. Of particular importance is his claim that "Man is by nature a political animal", which he backs up with an account of his observations as to the distinction between "speech" & "voice" among animals: voice is common to all animals and is used to express pain or pleasantry; whereas speech is reasoned and enables humans to express plainly, without emotion and in the abstract, what is painful or pleasant and more importantly what is just and unjust. Further attention ought also be paid to his account of man as a "social animal":

A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.

The concepts of justice, social cohesion, and the critical importance of social and political participation that Aristotle explicates in these passages are highly relevant to the modern world. In fact such concepts to this very day dominate the field of anthropology, sociology, ethics and political science. His accounting of such ideas demonstrate the timelessness and lucidity of much of his writing.

Within book IV, chapter XI of Politics we read of Aristotle's conception of democracy as the "best form of government". As was learned from book I, Aristotle posits that man is interested in achieving what is "good". As seen in the below quote, Aristotle argues for a political structure which is almost egalitarian or at least holds the potential for each person to achieve a modicum of influence over society.

We have now to inquire what is the best constitution for most states, and the best life for most men, neither assuming a standard of virtue which is above ordinary persons, nor an education which is exceptionally favoured by nature and circumstances, nor yet an ideal state which is an aspiration only, but having regard to the life in which the majority are able to share, and to the form of government which states in general can attain. ... For if what was said in the Ethics is true, that the happy life is the life according to virtue lived without impediment, and that virtue is a mean, then the life which is in a mean, and in a mean attainable by everyone, must be the best. And the same the same principles of virtue and vice are characteristic of cities and of constitutions; for the constitution is in a figure the life of the city.

Such a government as interpreted solely on the basis of the above quote might seem overly-optimistic or perhaps naive. However, Aristotle goes on to present a reasonable set of conditions by which a democracy could indeed provide not only the best situation for a majority of citizens, but also the most stable form of government. His approach is to advocate that democracy must consist of a large middle class, as those belonging to such a group would have the political clout given their numbers to protect their vested interests. In essence Aristotle contends that such a system institutes checks and balances upon the very rich and the very poor, thus provides stability while at the same time enabling a larger amount of the population to enjoy more leisure and success.. The interplay between these three classes, the poor, the middle class and the rich, outlined below provides a reasoned and pragmatic justification for democracy.

The middle class is least likely to shrink from rule, or to be over-ambitious for it; both of which are injuries to the state. Again, those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority. The evil begins at home; for when they are boys, by reason of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school, the habit of obedience. On the other hand, the very poor, who are in the opposite extreme, are too degraded. So that the one class cannot obey, and can only rule despotically; the other knows not how to command and must be ruled like slaves. Thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good fellowship in states than this: for good fellowship springs from friendship; when men are at enmity with one another, they would rather not even share the same path. But a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes. Wherefore the city which is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best constituted in respect of the elements of which we say the fabric of the state naturally consists. And this is the class of citizens which is most secure in a state, for they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbors' goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor covet the goods of the rich; and as they neither plot against others, nor are themselves plotted against, they pass through life safely.

Aristotle's pragmatic point of view may, in the opinion of moderns, seem to lack compassion for the very poor. While perhaps true in many ways, after all Aristotle throughout politics seems to imply that slaves are not even human. Nonetheless it is important in reading the works of Aristotle not to "beg the question of Aristotle" as Simpson puts it. In other words to focus on the flaws in logic or perceived moral deficiencies, which are largely based on cultural divergences between modern Western and Ancient Greek values and norms is to lose sight of the real value that can be found within Politics and also succumb to ethnocentrism. Moreover the core elements of his views on democracy are relevant in the context of the modern era and can easily be extrapolated to argue for democratic systems which seek a balance not only based on wealth, but also religion, ethnicity as well as all the many factors which drive man to division and instability.

A reading of Politics ought to lead a reader that the main thrust of Aristotle's thesis was meant to apply to all people of reason, regardless of the age in which they live. Though his work is informed based on the historical context of Ancient Athens, his aims were to provide something which is common to man and not tied down to any particular era. Below is an excerpt from Simpson's essay concerning the context of Politics.

The Politics, according to Aristotle himself is not about a historical phenomenon, nor is it about a Greek phenomenon. It is about a natural phenomenon which, if prominent in ancient Greece, could in principle exist in any place and at any time and which, moreover, is necessary at every place and at every time if human beings are to attain happiness.

In conclusion, Aristotle offers a compelling analysis of man's relation to his fellow man, the need for people to engage socially, and the participatory role we have to play within the political sphere. Furthermore Aristotle's analysis of democracy are highly applicable to providing a well ordered state, and in fact his philosophy has influenced Western Liberalism thought and impacted the enlightenment in many ways and we continue to benefit from his precepts to this day.

Bibliography

Aristotle. The Politics ; and, the Constitution of Athens. Edited by Stephen Everson. Rev. student ed. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Durant, Will. The Life of Greece; Being a History of Greek Civilization from the Beginnings, and of Civilization in the near East from the Death of Alexander, to the Roman Conquest. New York,: Simon and Schuster, 1966.

Lord, Carnes. "The Character and Composition of Aristotle's Politics." Review of Political Theory 9, no. 4 (1981): 459-78.

Masters, Roger D. "The Case of Aristotle's Missing Dialogues: Who Wrote the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Politics?" Review of Political Theory 5, no. 1 (1977): 31-60.

Simpson, Peter. A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 2d ed. Chicago :: University of Chicago Press, 1981.