سلامة الشعب فوق القانون

الضرورات تبيح

Thanks for this timely article!

The corona virus pandemic has had far-reaching consequences beyond the spread of the disease and efforts to quarantine it. As the pandemic has spread around the globe, concerns have shifted from economic to social and political effects .At the global level, the rise of China and decline of USA might lead to more isolation , and radicalization and less stability and democratization

I hope that the deep sense of meaninglessness and absurd together with the Corona epidemic will add a completely new depth to our experience of modernity and democracy. The Corona epidemic, as a global threat in the globalizing era, can give us more opportunities to face the contradictions of modernity. Globalization has been actually a process that enabled the contradictions of modernity to spread all over the world. The experience of modernity has been a historical experience that carries a number of structural contradictions such as universal-particular, individual-society, subject-structure, knowledge-value, truth-nature, freedom-mind and theory-practice from the very beginning. Looking at the global-local contradiction from this perspective; it is extremely important to evaluate modernization, which has been localizing as well as globalizing from the beginning, with its structural contradictions. Whether considered as a dialectical relationship, as the pains of a long-term integration process, or as a contradiction that does not actually exist, the global-local contradiction is an integral part of the experience of modernity. It seems that the politics of the subject / local will determine the increasingly deconstructing world of the future. However, if the radicalization and universalization of the consequences of modernity will also mean intensification of the contradictions of modernity, it seems inevitable that “locality” is the new battlefield of conflicting identities.

One cannot protect a system by itself without the support of the people. This has demonstrated the weaknesses of democratic structure and decentralization of power. The states on their own cannot marshall resources to combat the virus on their own and Federal government is trapped in election year- politics between economic impact of shutting down economy vs need for shutting down to limit the spread of the virus.

Bipin Shah , I have similar thoughts. I wrote is last month, so it might not be completely up to date, but I think it reflects what you've said in your post. My original piece is Preprint The Coronavirus and the American Reality

I hope all are safe and healthy,

~Tom

Thanks, my friend. I think in modern times, death and sickness of these magnitudes is unacceptable and may become a political issue in the coming election and Obamacare may get strengthened. This time business people will see this more than their bottom line because without healthy people they can not generate profit.

I hope so too my friend, be well,

~Tom

Very good question in itself, apart from de the virus crisis. I have just written a contribution on the problem of democracy for an international congress, unhappily cancelled for the virus, and I think that the questioning of democracy is made since the end of bipolar era. The question today is what system could be proposed after democracy because democracy is not compatible with the pure capitalism that has been imposed. Democracy is attacked from the extreme right, extreme left and from capitalism. People have to face a very specific dilemma: democracy or improvement of living standard.

The discussions range from Passivity to Revolt, and Democracy to Authoritarianism. One comment from Bipin Shah suggested the need for "support of the people". My question would be "which people"? In any democratic (or any authoritarian state) there is diversity of thought that does not allow for Confucian Harmony. In democracies money corrupts the system and in authoritarian states power hungry rulers subvert the public good. The Socratic Philosopher King was authoritarian, but became the less offensive benevolent dictator. Thus authoritarian states could be workable as well. Singapore may be an example of this. They somehow seem to straddle the democracy authoritarian divide. What institutions allow this to be practical? Maybe some big data analysis will provide an answer for "social contentment by system". I don't know how that can be achieved by normalizing the power factor.

Ken Barrie

Dear colleagues, Thank you all for your interesting answers and thoughts. I wanted to reply to each of your comments, but actually I don't find out how I can respond individually on researchgate. How is the situation after the lockdown in your countries and how did democracy and rebellion change since then?

I think this question isn't just about the pandemic and its consequences. A number of deeper and more common issues need to be considered. Deprivation, victimization, rich-poor discrimination, racism, humiliation, discrimination, etc. Many issues trigger this situation. Because most of these street movements and large-scale demonstrations were already on the agenda before the pandemic. Liberal democracies in their current form ring the alarm bells.

On the other hand, in countries such as my country (Turkey), anti-system movements did not arise. Such actions did not affect daily life and the functioning of the system. Of course, some problems and political conflicts arose, but these did not turn into systemic problems.

Fatih Ertugay yes, absolutely, I fully agree. I understand democracy as the right to opposition and the readiness to dialogue. Discrimination, exclusion etc are urgent problems that need to be resolved in many liberal democracies. I wrote something about that here: https://efus.eu/de/topics/%activity%/20040/

Kenneth Barrie I don't think that enlightened or benevolent autocrats can replace democracy or perform better in those areas that are crucial in my opinion: individual freedom, the right to oppose, the right to strive for one's own way of life and for happiness, the right to participate in decision making etc. The benevolent autocrat considers citizens as children and believes in his own superiority. This is absolutely incompatible with my weltanschauung and as I think also with human needs.

Mohammed Abdul Kadim I'm sorry, but I'm not able to read your answer. Could you share it in English, please?

Mohammed Torki Bani Salameh Yes, I'm afraid that you are right with the negative consequences of COVID-19. After several months, how would you analyse the current situation?

Murat İnce Thank you Murat, this is a very interesting perspective, indeed. I think that the contradictions are constitutional to any democracy as I believe in dialectical theory and complexity. In my opinion we need to reshape and redefine the opposed poles in every society anew and build a kind of tolerance for ambiguity, but at the same time help to eridacate autocratic and unjust relations.

Bipin Shah and Thomas E. Keefe Thank you for these interesting perspectives. It is important to compare different performances and find the right indicators, I think. There is an old argument saying that democracy in many respects is not efficient enough or not as efficient as autocratic systems or hybrid systems might be. However, this cannot be proven by empirical data and comparison. During COVID-19, many democratic states were quite good in the management of the crisis while other democratic states were worse, but this mainly has to do with the level of social systems, health systems etc.

Miguel Ángel Quintana I agree that democracy is threatened by different aggressors and from different poles. However, I don't think that democracy and living standard are a contradiction. Quite the opposite. The highest living standards are to be found in democratic states (Scandinavian states, Switzerland, Austria, Luxemburg etc.).

Markus Pausch, in addition to what you said, I think that federalism is an important variable; Unitary states, whether authoritarian or democratic, have been more successful than the US because, in my opinion, of the limits of federalism.

Thomas E. Keefe That's a very interesting point. In Austria we are facing troubles with federalism in the crisis, in Germany as well, but still both states have managed quite well in comparison with others. On the contrary, France with a unitary state was one of the most affected countries in Europe. So, I agree that it is probably more difficult with federalism, but other variables seem to be more important.

The point is that democracy is based upon the consensus that arose since the II WW, which consider the system appropiate for everybody on the condition that everybody has a part in the richness create by the system, because we have to keep always in mind that the system we call democracy is deeply linked to the capitalist system. If as it happens now, people see that the share of richness is not anymore distributed, the consensus is broken and democracy is in danger. On the other hand, the question is not the stadistical approach of living standart bur how it is distributed in reality.

Democracy is much older and much more diverse, but it's true that there is a close link to wealth and a correlation (but still it would be too simplistic to reduce it to that aspect). There are many differences in the democratic history of nation states with interruptions and continuities. Also, the distribution of wealth is best in democratic states like the Scandinavian. However, I fully agree that economic breakdown and rising inequality (lack of distribution of wealth) is a high risk for the democratic quality of a state. I'm totally in favour of strong social systems, basic incomes and taxes on property. But here again we see many different developments within Europe.

Yes of course democracy is much older than II WW but the kind of democracy we have is born of an evolution from the end of the XIX century and much more since the end of the II WW in which de simple demoracy was transformed into a Social and Democratic State based on Law. In this State, in order to stop the increase appeal of communism, dominant classes accepted to share a part of its richness. It was accepted by the FCP and the ICM, and the liberal democracy was not jeopardized. Since the movement launch by Enrico Berlinguer "Eurocommunism", liberal democrarcy was fully accepted and the FCP, for instance, erased the proletarian dictatorship as the main tool to reach the society wihout class (as M. Rubel in a excellent article, to renounce to the dictatorship was impossible from a marxist point of view). So, it is to this unwritten agreement that I was referred to. Finally, even if it seems that we have many different developments in Europe, a closer look at the real situacion on the field, there is only a develpment, but with differente timing.

Miguel Ángel Quintana Thank you, Miguel - this is a very interesting perspective. Could you send me the link to the article by M. Rubel and/or one of yours on the topic?

Dear Markus. You can get M. Rubel's article in INTERNET MARXIST ARCHIVE. I do not remember exactly the title but it was as a response to the decisition of the Politburo of the FCP concerning the abandon of the dictatorship. In what I am concerned I have never wrote on this subject, but I studied it for my work on hte origins of soviet foreign policy. Concerning the democracy, I am finishing a book on the end of the democratic system for my work "The Pillars of Western Civilization". A brief has been recently published as a contribution to a book just published by the University of Tokio "The new international order". If you are interested in it, I can send you my contribution. Regards.

Miguel Ángel Quintana Thank you so much. Yes, would be great to have your contribution.

Thank you, Markus! I am working more or less on the same issue (different perspective, though), trying to find answers what the global society is going to be in the future... My point goes into the social change we are facing now. The pandemic actually puts on the table the inequalities - educational, quality of life, living environment, etc. Most vulnerable in case of infection are the poor, the refugees, the homeless, the elderly, the people with disabilities, the ethnic minorities... But here the question is that in order to prevent the spread of the pandemic, we need to take care of the others! This is the big question for me. The societies are more and more individualistic - the resistance against the measures now is obvious. The country and regions variations are catastrophic - within EU for example. And the institutional weakness is obvious everywhere. When I am ready with some text, I will send it to you. Let's be in touch.

Thank you, Ina, for your comment. Actually, during a pandemic it's really difficult to defend my argument that democracy needs rebellion. I fully agree, that we need to take care of each other and that resistance against these measures is a big risk. In my articles about democracy and rebellion I always stress (according to Camus) that what we need is not a rebellion just for the sake of rebellion, but a rebellion that is based on humanist solidarity. Most Corona-deniers are not solidary with others and their resistance is not what I call a democratic rebellion. We can see this in their rejection of dialogue and in the use of conspiracy theories - all this is the opposite of a critical, rational dialogue that seems integral part of the rebellion as I understand it (with Camus). Btw, you know that another key novel of Camus is The Plague, which perfectly shows this problematic. I hope you will get a better insight into my argument after reading the article, Best wishes!