Human history can be told in terms of political change – often slow and gradual, but sometimes sudden and revolutionary. Recent rapid improvements in communications and transportation have facilitated globalization, and some form of liberal democracy is now the norm in almost every country in the world. While the spread of free-market ideology has undoubtedly brought increased prosperity, the gap between rich and poor has widened – both within countries, as well as between the developed and the developing worlds. This upward distribution of wealth, bolstered by government bailouts and harsh austerity measures, has contributed to a feeling of ‘them and us’. As disillusionment with the prevaling ideology and conventional politics grows, politicians are perceived as being out of touch and acting in the interests of a rich and powerful minority. Popular movements, such as the Occupy movement with its slogan ‘we are the 99%’, have emerged with an anti-capitalist and anti-globalization agenda, and some economists have proposed alternatives to the neoliberal orthodoxy.
Since the 1970s, the neoliberal policies espoused by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (see here) have been adopted by governments around the world. Strictly laissez-faire economic policies, combined with a right-wing social agenda, seemed to be a recipe for success, and at the turn of the century business was booming under these capitalism-friendly policies. In 2007, however, the cracks began to show, and the following year came a massive financial crash followed by years of global recession. The principle of minimal state interference in the markets had to be waived, as governments were called upon to bail out financial institutions that were ‘too big to fail’. The majority of governments in the West believe free-market economic policies encourage growth and innovation, and rather than tax and regulate business to effect a recovery, imposed aggressive ‘austerity’ measures to cut public spending. The right, it seems, is moving further from the centre both economically and socially, and whether this has the desired effect remains to be seen.
In 1956, the sociologist Charles Wright Mills published The Power Elite, which described the real governing power in the world as in the hands of a political, military and commercial elite. Despite the widespread adoption of some form of representative democracy, political power is largely handed over to these institutions who determine the political, military and economic decisions of the country. Increasingly, with unregulated free markets, large corporations have become dominant players, exerting influence on governments and even the military to act in the interests of commerce.
What Wright Mills did not foresee perhaps, was the emergence of a fourth institution as part of this elite, the media. With the traditional press, radio, TV and internet, media companies control the valuable commodity of information, and as these rapidly became part of a few massive multinational corporations, considerable political and economic power has been transferred to the media moguls.
At one point in the mid-20th century, something like one-third of the world’s population lived in countries governed along Marxist principles, and elsewhere more or less socialist parties thrived in liberal democracies. But by the end of the century, the ‘clash of ideologies’ between the capitalist West and communist East seemed to have been won, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall and even the adoption in China of a modified form of capitalism. Communism was seen as a failed experiment, although some held that true communism had never been put into practice, and that the so-called communist states were in fact ‘socialist dictatorships’. In the wake of this failure, many left-of-centre movements and parties abandoned socialist ideals, such as state ownership of industries and a government-led economy, in favour of free-market capitalism, even adopting some of its attitudes to welfare spending. However, as increasing inequality and austerity become more apparent than prosperity, there are signs of a resurgence of Marxist-inspired politics.
By the end of the 20th century, it seemed that the dream of government of, by and for the people was about to be universally realized. But the reality has proved rather different. In the 21st century, there is a widespread feeling that power still remains with an elite, the product of the free-market economics adopted by liberal democracies. In the global recession following the financial crisis of 2008, there was an increasing distrust of politicians (of all parties) who were seen as colluding with big business, and a disconnect between government and the wishes of the people.
Democracy, it seems, has not been achieved, and possibly always will remain an unattainable goal. The cynical view is that representative democracy is the best of a poor choice of political systems, and that the majority of people are happy to delegate responsibility for managing the state to an elected few. Besides, even in the most egalitarian societies, some form of leadership always emerges.
The political economist Francis Fukuyama dubbed what he saw as the culmination of social and economic evolution to an ideal political system, ‘the end of history’.
As well as the economic effects of globalization, profound changes have been brought about by improvements in communication and the ease with which people can move around the world. Populations in many countries have become more diverse as a result of immigration, while at the same time alliances of all sorts between countries have created a homogeneity blurring national borders. Yet people continue to feel a need to identify with a community. While some political groups resist change to traditional national identities, fearing conflict between indigenous and immigrant cultures, others welcome the development of pluralist societies. In the Western world, a balance is being struck between integration and multiculturalism that despite inevitable tensions, has led to people identifying themselves not in relation to a single cultural community, but several. There is no contradiction today in a person describing him or herself as European, British, Scottish, black and Muslim, any more than the so-called ‘hyphenated Americans’ – immigrants who have retained their cultural roots.
Religion in 21st-century politics
It is estimated that some 75 per cent of the world’s population identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another. Even though only a few countries have an official state religion, the culture of many nations is shaped by the predominant religions, which undoubtedly influence their politics. In liberal democracies, particularly those with diverse multicultural populations, freedom to practise religion is considered a human right, but opinion is very much divided as to what role religion should play in affairs of state.
Even in avowedly secular states, such as the USA, a majority of voters find the idea of an atheist in the White House unacceptable. The intimate link between religion and culture is especially strong in more conservative politics, and this often means territorial, ethnic, or political conflicts have a religious dimension too; troubles in Ireland, the Balkan states and the Middle East are frequently cited as religious clashes when there are more complex causes.
It is likely that the accelerating advances in technology today will bring unforeseen changes not only to the way we live our lives, but also to the way we organize our societies. It has been suggested that we are moving into a post-industrial world based on information technology and, while it is true that much of the developed world has shifted to service industries, we are still reliant on manufacturing and agriculture. Information, and the speed and ease with which we can access it, is changing the way that we participate in the political process. Opinions are shaped by information spread through the internet, and this has enabled grassroots movements to thrive.
Mainstream politics has been slow to adapt, allowing many anti-establishment groups, including terrorist organizations, to infiltrate political and military computers. Some of this activity has exposed corruption and abuses of power, but also compromised national security, and has led to governments restricting civil liberties on the pretext of security.
In 2012, Julian Assange, co-founder of the controversial website WikiLeaks, sought refuge from extradition proceedings in London’s Ecuadorian embassy.
Modern political theory and philosophy has concentrated largely on different attitudes to economic and social issues, and the degree to which these should be the responsibility of the state or the individual. The implicit assumption is that politics is a human invention, and as such can be determined by us. It has become increasingly apparent, however, that there are external, environmental factors that affect our political decision-making. Scientific evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact that our previous management of the environment has pushed us to the brink of catastrophe.
Many mainstream politicians have made some concessions to Green policies (see here); others have chosen to ignore – or even flout – the warning signs. There are those who believe that drastic measures are needed to avert irreversible damage to the environment, which threatens economic mayhem and even extinction of our species. Unless these are prioritized now, they could very soon be the only item on the agenda.
