Chapter 110 Chapter 19 Towards a New Millennium 6

6 We are thus faced with a double dilemma.The nature and scope of decision-making power units - whether international, supranational, national or subnational, operating alone or jointly - what is the difference?What kind of relationship will it have with the people who are related to its decision-making? The first question, from a certain point of view, is a technical question.Because the institutions of public power are already in place, and the pattern of relations between them already exists in principle.The ever-expanding organization of the European Union provides much material on this topic, although any particular suggestion as to the actual division of labor among international, supranational, national, and subnational organizations , The plan must be hated and resisted by someone or a certain country.Existing international power institutions are clearly too specialized in their functions, even if they try to expand their powers and impose political or ecological claims on countries that come to borrow money.However, the European Union, as an organization, will probably maintain its unique status of being the only one without a semicolon, because it is a special product of the European historical situation, unless some kind of similar organization will be reorganized among the fragments of the former Soviet Union. integrated organization.Beyond that, the rate at which general supranational decision-making proceeds increases, though not predictably, but we get a glimpse of how it might work.In fact, it is already in operation, through the global bank managers of the massive international lenders, representing an oligarchic pool of resources from the wealthiest countries, which also happens to include the most powerful countries in the world.As the gap between rich and poor grows, so does the scope for exercising such international power.Here lies the headache: Since the 1970s, two international institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, backed by US political backers, have systematically favored free market "orthodoxy", private enterprise, and Economic policy of global free trade.Not only does it meet the economic taste of the United States in the late 20th century, but it also has the economic style of Britain in the 19th century, but it does not necessarily meet the real needs of the world.Such biased policies must change if global policymaking is to fulfill its potential.However, in the short term, there is no such possibility.

The second question, however, has nothing to do with technical handling.The problem lies in the dilemma faced by the world at the end of this century.Today's world, while committed to a particular brand of political democracy, runs into fundamental policy problems that have nothing to do with presidential and multiparty elections—even if such elections never compound the problem.The past century was a century of ordinary "husbands" and "children"—at least before the rise of feminism—so in a nutshell, this problem is basically the dilemma of those who live in it.This is an era when the government can—some would say, must—be "owned by the people" and "for the people"; Governance is through election-elected representatives.This contradiction has actually been around for a long time.The difficulties of democratic politics (discussed earlier in this book) have been a familiar subject for political scholars and satirists since referendum politics became the norm, not just unique to the United States.

However, the dilemma of democracy has become more acute nowadays. On the one hand, due to the constant monitoring of polls and the ubiquitous media constantly fanning the flames, public opinion has become an inescapable matter.On the other hand, since the public authorities need to make more decisions, it is not a mere public opinion that can guide them.It is often the case that the authorities may have to make decisions which are disliked by the majority of voters, and which individual voters object to for private reasons, although on the whole they may be beneficial to all.Thus, towards the end of the century, politicians in certain democracies came to the conclusion that any proposal to raise taxes would be tantamount to suicide on the ballot.Elections have thus become a stage for candidates to compete to lie about the finances.At the same time, voters and Congress—including the vast majority of voters and elected officials—have to constantly face decisions that laymen are not qualified to comment on, such as the future of nuclear power generation.

But even in democracies, there are moments when the people and the government share the same goals, when the government enjoys legitimacy and the people’s trust, and there is a strong sense of solidarity between the two sides: British soldiers and civilians during World War II.In addition, there have been other times when, due to special circumstances, there was a basic consensus among the political enemies, allowing the government to act freely and pursue policies that everyone had no basic differences, such as the Western countries in the golden age.And governments often need to rely on expert opinion, which is indispensable for lay administration.When these tech advisors speak, as long as they speak the same words—or at least more of the same than different—policy disputes tend to be reduced.Only when experts and scholars disagree, layman decision-makers fall into the dark, as if the jury encounters psychologists who are called by both the prosecution and the defense to testify.

But we have also seen that two decades of crisis have undermined the consensus on political matters and the truths that have traditionally been the intellectual consensus, especially in those disciplines relevant to policymaking.As for the whole people working together, military and civilian integration, standing behind the government to go to the root of the country (or conversely, the policy is strongly recognized by the people), it became extremely rare in the 1990s.It is true that there are still many countries in the world whose people consider a strong, active, socially responsible government, deserving of a certain degree of freedom of action, to be indispensable because its task is to pursue the general happiness.Unfortunately, in this late century, governments that truly live up to this ideal are rare.Even if there are, they are mostly found in countries where the American-style individual supremacy is the typical founding of the country, and they are polluted by litigation disputes and political party interests from time to time.Governments in many more countries are so weak or corrupt that they are not expected to contribute to the public good.This type of country is often seen in the third world, but like Italy in the 1980s, it is not unheard of in the first world.

Thus, of all decision makers, the least disturbed by the headaches of democratic politics are the following: private large corporations, supranational organizations—non-democratic regimes, of course.In a democratic political system, the decision-making process is hardly free from politicians' interference, the only exception is that in some countries, the actions of the central bank can finally escape their control (generally hope that this example can be replicated elsewhere ).However, what is becoming more and more common is that the government cuts first and plays later, trying to bypass the voters or the parliament; or create a fait accompli, leaving voters with the headache of overturning the foregone conclusion.Because public opinion is unpredictable, divided, and more often dull and lazy, it is not known whether it will pass the test with ease.So politics has become even more a means of avoiding escape, because politicians dare not speak out against the ears of voters.What's more, with the end of the Cold War, the government can no longer easily use "national security" as an excuse to conduct secret operations, so this strategy of avoiding concealment may become more popular.Even in democracies, more and more decision-making bodies will be removed from the vote, and the only indirect link left will be the policy itself that appoints these units, which is ultimately decided by the voters in the first place.The centralization and centralization of government power, such as what Britain did in the 1980s and early 1990s, has a tendency to increase this type of specially appointed units that do not need to obey the will of the voters-called "quasinongovernment" (quasinongovernment) Organiztion, quanto); even countries where the separation of powers have not been effectively established find this tactic of quietly eradicating democracy very convenient.As for countries such as the United States, this move is even more indispensable.Because under the natural separation of administrative and legislative within the system, it is sometimes impossible to make any resolutions by following normal channels—except for behind-the-scenes consultations.

By the end of the century, many voters had given up politics and simply let the "political class" (Political class) worry about state affairs - "political class" seems to have originated in Italy.These political classes, who read each other's speeches and commentaries, are a group of special-interest professional politicians, journalists, political lobbyists, and various other professions who rank last in social trust surveys.Because for most people, the political process has nothing to do with them at all, and at most only has some influence on their personal lives.And at the same time, the affluence of life, the privatization of living space and entertainment forms, coupled with the self-centeredness of consumers, have occupied the content of ordinary people's daily life, thus making politics even more unimportant and boring.And there are other voters who, finding that they get nothing out of the election, decide to leave politics altogether. Between 1960 and 1988, the proportion of blue-collar workers who voted in the U.S. presidential election fell by one-third (Leighly Naylor, 1992, p. 731).Moreover, with the decline of organized mass parties—whether class or ideological orientation—the drive to turn ordinary people into enthusiastic political citizens has thus ended.For most people, even the collective consciousness of national identity has now been transformed. It has to be called upon by national sports, sports teams, or various non-political symbols, and the centripetal force it can win Far larger than the national mechanism.

Some people may have thought that since the political enthusiasm of the people is lost in this way, the authorities should be free to formulate policies; in fact, the effect is just the opposite.Those who remain—perhaps sometimes for the common good, and more often for the benefit of individual groups—restrain politics as much as, and sometimes even more than, general-purpose political parties.Because pressure groups are different from general political parties, they can focus their firepower individually and focus on a specific single target.What is more, the political function of the mass media has been further amplified by the government's systematic use of sidestepping the electoral process.The media goes deep into every family, providing the most powerful communication tool so far between public affairs and ordinary men, women and children.The pervasive ability of the media spares no effort to excavate and report on topics that the rulers wish to keep silent, and at the same time, it also gives the general public an opportunity to express their feelings, vent their feelings, and express their feelings that cannot be expressed freely in the design of formal democratic channels.The media has thus become a major player in the arena of public affairs; politicians use it and scruple it.Advances in technology have made the power of the media difficult to control, even in highly authoritarian countries.The decline of state power has made it even more difficult for non-dictatorial countries to monopolize media power.As the century draws to a close, the media's role in the political process is clearly more important than political parties and electoral systems, and is likely to remain so—unless the path of politics takes a sudden turn away from democracy.However, although the effect of the media against government secret politics is great, it is by no means a means to realize the original meaning of a democratic regime.

Neither the media nor popularly elected representative bodies, nor even "the people" themselves, can "govern" in the sense that the word "govern" actually means.On the other hand, a government with "power to govern," or any similar form of public decision-making, can no more act against or against the will of the people, any more than the people can live against the government or without it. .For better or for worse, ordinary people of the twentieth century are bound to go down in history as collective power.Except for theocratic politics, every regime now has to obtain the source of power from the people, even those countries that abuse and kill their own people on a large scale.The once popular title of "totalitarianism" means the concept of populism.For if it doesn't matter what the "people" think—that is, what they feel about those who rule them in disguise—why bother the "people" to think what their rulers think is proper?The era of obedience willingly to God, tradition, and superiors, where the social class was clearly defined, and the government obtained the unanimous obedience of the people from it, has gradually become a thing of the past.Even the Islamic "fundamentalist" regime, the most prosperous theocratic politics at present, is not based on the will of Allah, but obtained after a large number of ordinary people mobilized to fight against the unpopular government.Whether or not "the people" have the right to elect their own government, the ability of "people's" power to interfere in public affairs—whether active or passive—plays a decisive role.

In fact, just because throughout the history of the 20th century, extremely brutal tyranny has emerged one after another, and examples of trying to impose a majority with a minority of forces are also everywhere - such as the apartheid policy in South Africa - which further proves the limited power of authoritative oppression.Even the most ruthless and cruel rulers are aware that unlimited power cannot replace political assets and power skills, that is, the public's awareness of the legal identity of the regime, a considerable degree of active support, and the ruler's decision-making governance ability.Furthermore, the people do not need to be willing to obey - especially the sword of crisis - once this willingness disappears (as in Eastern Europe in 1989), the only way for the regime to go to power, although they still have the support of the government's Chinese armed forces and secret agents.Simply put, contrary to appearances, the history of the 20th century tells us that a dictator can be in power "for a while" against "all" of the people, or "permanently" against "some" of the people. "in power, but cannot "permanently" violate "all" the people.To be sure, this truth is of no consolation to the weak few in a state of chronic oppression, or to those poor souls who have suffered from general misery for more than a generation.

All of this not only fails to answer the question raised earlier, that is, what is the relationship between policy makers and the people?On the contrary, it is more and more difficult to find the answer.The policies of the authorities concerned must take into account the likes and dislikes of the people (or at least the wishes of the majority of citizens)—even if their purpose does not in fact reflect public opinion.At the same time, they cannot formulate policies based on public opinion alone.What's more, if those unpopular policies are implemented on the general public, it will be three points more difficult than imposing them on "powerful groups".It is easier to order a few giant car companies to comply with hard-and-fast exhaust standards than it is to convince millions of drivers to reduce their gas consumption.Every government in Europe has also found that putting the future of the EU in the hands of voters is bound to be ineffective, or at least difficult to predict.Anyone who observes the world situation knows that, entering the early stage of the 21st century, many imperative decisions will be unpopular.Perhaps only another era of prosperity and progress—such as the Golden Age of this century—can ease the tension and soften the mood of the masses.However, whether it is a return to the prosperity of the 1960s, or the relaxation of social and cultural tensions in the two decades of crisis, it is unlikely at present. If universal suffrage remains a universal political principle—and it seems it should—the world seems to have only two options.One is that wherever the existing decision-making process has not yet left the political track, sooner or later elections will be avoided, detoured—or, rather, the constant monitoring of government that elections entail.Dependent on elected institutions, their actions will become more and more obscure, hiding and hiding, like squid, behind the thick and dark miasma, confusing the eyes and ears of ordinary voters.The other option is to re-establish a consensus that allows the authorities a reasonable amount of freedom to act, at least to the extent that many citizens do not feel uncomfortable.In fact, this political model has precedents to follow since Napoleon III in the mid-18th century; through democratic elections, a savior for the people is elected, or a national salvation regime is elected for the country—that is, "democracy by popular vote". "(plebiscitary democracy).This kind of regime does not necessarily govern through the constitution, but if it is confirmed by honest and reasonable elections under the election of well-matched candidates, and some opposition voices are allowed to exist, it can indeed meet the standards of a democratic and legal regime at the end of the century.This approach, however, does not help the prospects for liberal parliamentary politics.