Monthly Archives: June 2012

Fukuyama – Homo Economicus and Perfidious Albion

I’m reading Fukuyama’s intriguing “The Origins of Political Order” at the moment, which is a little preachy and even excessively researched, but certainly worth the investment.  Two things caught my attention this morning.  First, in his discussion on legalism versus Confucian thought in China(p.119-120), he explains that Confucianism relied on family, kinship, and the patrimonial social order where the family was central.  Legalism rejected tht approach, seeing mankind as homo economicus, binding citizens to the state on an economic, self-interested basis.  It struck me that much of the socialist / capitalist, left-wing / right wing, US Democrat / US Republican, UK Labour / UK Conservative divide that we see today (and even Irish Labour / Irish Fine Gael, who are in coalition government together) mirrored that distinction from almost three thousand years ago.  There are no new ideas, it would appear.

The second thing that piqued my interest was a reference to perfidious albion – in his assessment of why Europe did not develop in the same way as China, he cites geography (mountains, seas etc.) but also the presence of a large and (it would appear) disproportionately influential Britain, who “acted for much of European history as a deliberate balancer that tried to break up hegemonic coalition.”  Plus ca change then.  I started writing about this today in an attempt to explain current Euro zone goings on, but it descended rather rapidly into polemic, so I posted it on my political / opinion / rant blog over here.

Legitimate Expectation?

What is the role of expectation in determining legitimacy?  Is legitimacy a relative concept?  Tonight Egypt is again in the throws of more demonstrations, while rumours fly about the health of former President Mubarak.  Some suggest this is the end of the revolution, much as Ukraine went through a cycle of demonstration against Viktor Yanukovych‘s allegedly rigged victory in 2004, only to return to him after several years of failed ambition in 2010.  So Egypt may also revert to its previous state – most likely sans Mubarak, though age waits for no man, and his demise was inevitable anyway.  Why does this happen?  Is there an unreasonableness to the ambition of crowds?

Continue reading

Foreign Policy’s Failed State Index

Great resource from Foreign Policy on failed states, and the extent to which states are ‘failed’.  On the one hand, this is an index made up of some good and probably some less good – or at best subjective – numbers.  Therefore it’s of limited scientific value, in the sense that we could use it to make some impirical judgements.  However, it does a useful job of identifying key categories for considering whether states are failed or not.  The categories include ‘Delegitimization of the State’ which I intend to investigate further; rather than describing it as an absolute number, or value (such as legitimacy, relative legitimacy, or legitimacy perception) it describes it as a process.  Curious.

One other interesting aspect is the extent to which “State Failure” as a metric can be inverted and measured as “State Success”.  On that measure, Ireland is more successful (or “less failed”) than the UK, France or the USA.  Which is kind of fun…just don’t tell the IMF, because they think they own the place 😀

Tagged ,

The Internet as an unfettered good? Or Complex bad?!

Quick post – interesting guardian article.

Two-sided freedom is an interesting concept. Isn’t that just freedom? Do we have less privacy online than we do offline? Anyone can snoop on us offline…right? People can be nosey…people can be earwigging. Is it really all that different? And how does it change our notions of identity if we craft it online?

Letter from Johannesburg

ImageSouth Africa is a country of almost 50m people, rebuilding itself.  It has serious challenges with crime, and corruption, but it is doing much better than any other country in Africa.  Like so many African countries, it is extremely rich in natural resources; as we flew into Johannesburg, the South African in the seat beside me pointed out the point in the high veld where at least 80% of the world’s platinum is buried.  The uranium is further south, and gold and diamonds are everywhere.

For all that, my security briefings were frequent and stark.  Johannesburg is not a safe city.  Don’t drive anywhere.  Don’t go for a walk.  And so on and so forth.  Nairobi – coming later this week – was admittedly reported as being more dangerous, but South Africa has its issues.  One of my colleagues was “held up” as he describes it last year – thieves with guns and cable ties broke into his house, tied him and his partner up, and pushed the nose of the gun into the backs of their heads demanding money and valuables.  It lasted for an hour, and it’s not unusual.  Thankfully neither of them were hurt.

In 2010, South Africa successfully hosted the Soccer World Cup.  It was a significant investment for the country, but an important statement to the world – the New South Africa has arrived!  The Rugby World Cup in 1995 was more of a symbolic statement, coming so soon after the ending of Apartheid, and didn’t have the same caché as hosting the soccer equivalent (it was, after all, only the third time the Rugby World Cup was held at all!).

There are internal and external factors in calculating legitimacy.  For South Africa, its crime rate, and by extension the capacity of the government to secure its citizens, impacts negatively.  Similarly, corruption, and the extent to which it impacts on individual freedom to trade, establish businesses, and generally engage in commerce, is a negative.  These are both internal factors.  The extent to which the infrastructure of the state is recognised as legitimate by the international community – locally, regionally, and globally – is important.  States need both.  Syria’s Al-Assad maintains a tenuous grip on legitimacy internally – it would appear that a significant minority oppose him within Syria, but he retains control over the military.  Externally, he retains strong support from Russia and China in particular, which is sufficient to maintain a non-interventionist policy in the UN, a position that frankly suits the US in all likelihood.  Hilary Clinton declared recently that Al-Assad had lost his legitimacy.  But of course he hasn’t – not yet, in any case.

Back here in South Africa, there are large swathes of the population who are disenfranchised, who by extension offer no support for the legitimacy of the state (which does nothing for them anyway).  Queuing for passport control this morning with hundreds of passengers who had flown in from Europe, I noticed that the vast, vast majority of those queuing with South African passports were white.  Generally speaking, the wealth remains very unequally distributed.  But the state itself retains its integrity, it remains better than what went before.  Still, twenty years on, there are voters now in South Africa who were born after the end of apartheid, and who will be demanding more.

What is “An Economy of Legitmacy”

Legitimacy is a fabled, ethereal thing. It is not exclusively democratic (monarchs enjoy legitimacy too, as to dictators), it’s not confined to the nation state (local government, NGOs, corporations, and international organisations also enjoy it), and it most certainly not constant. Legitimacy ebbs and flows, as a measure of the confidence of a people in its government, and also, increasingly, as a measure of the international community’s acceptance of a government as the legitimate representatives of a nation state. It is a relative thing – different people will see their government as more or less legitimate due to their personal beliefs and politics. Representative democracy tries to address minority opinion, but the basic liberal democratic structure suffers still from what Tocqueville calledthe tyranny of the majority‘. Different international actors will infuse a government with legitimacy in its representations on the international stage. So Russia will continue to recognise and support Assad’s Syria, while Britain expels her diplomats. Legitimacy then is currency, a ‘good’ for the personas of international relations, nations states. It should be measurable (I’m hoping to find some research showing how it can be measured, or else do the work myself), and it should be comparable. There should be investments that can be made in order to build legitimacy, such as in institutions. Wars may increase or reduce legitimacy. All of these pieces need to be modelled.

Tagged

What do Syria and the British Monarchy have in Common? Legitimacy Crises!

The coincidence of the Syrian crisis with the Jubilee Celebrations in the UK for the 50th anniversary of their Queen’s accession to the throne may appear at first instance to be entirely separate news items in a pretty busy news schedule.  But underneath each story is a crisis of legitimacy, and attempts by key protagonists – Bashir Al-Assad in the first instance, and Queen Elizabeth in the second – to maintain their weakining legitimacy.  Henry Kissinger waded into the Syria crisis with a strongly worded criticism of US policy in the crisis. With an argument rooted all the way back in The Treaty of Westphalia, Kissinger railed against the default interventionism that has characterised the Arab Spring as breaking with centuries of – essentially – respect for national sovereignty.  Of course one could argue that the proxy wars of the Cold War and more recent interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan – and even in Yemen, Somalia, and Kosovo – pre-dated the Arab Spring and clearly established an option of pragmatic interventionism, moral hazard be damned.

The integrity of the state, the sanctity of its sovereignty, and quite literally the neck of Syria’s leader, are all on the line.  A question arises about where the state itself gets its legitimacy.  While Assad held recent elections, it appears pretty clear that those elections did little to legitimise his position.  The opposition and self-proclaimed oppressed people within Syria are looking to the International Community to intervene and protect their human rights.  Now, when we legitimise a political institution, we offer up our freedom to that institution so that it will secure our individual rights and freedoms.  If the oppressed peoples of Syria are looking to the international community to secure their rights, and if interventionalism (humanitarian or otherwise) has become a default position, are we witnessing a transition of sovereignty and / or legitimacy to “The International Community”?

Meanwhile, closer to home, the sun is stubbornly refusing to make an appearance in London for the pomp of the Jubilee.  Quite literally, it is raining on their parade.  As if the British weather wasn’t enough, Poly Toynbee decided to have a pop at the Royal Family, as she is wont to do.  Her assault is more wide ranging than that – she attacks that fading vision of Britishness, a decrepit and anachronistic national identity that bears no resemblance to who the British actually are.  Perhaps the legitimacy of the State is not undermined by the extraordinary edifice that is the Monarchy; it is more tourist attraction / museum piece than something that geniunely represents Britain.  But its position is increasingly detached from the State, and one suspects that the next accession could well be strained.

 

%d bloggers like this: