I am overjoyed that Aung San Suu Kyi has been released from house arrest. But, since I have serious reservations on Democracy, this post is intended to temper public euphoria with a little caution. What matters most in politics are the policies espoused by a candidate - and there is little I have heard or read on Suu Kyi's political ideology.
Of course, the generals running Burma are lawless tyrants. Their power flows from the barrels of guns. But then, William the Conqueror was also such a man. Unable to take him on militarily, the merchants of London responded by setting up their "One Square Mile of Liberty." Decades later came the Magna Carta. Then, there was Liberty. It is Liberty that matters, not Democracy - and we in India should know that well. To me, it would make eminent strategic sense if Suu Kyi campaigned for a self-governing and free-trading Rangoon - to start with. After all, Democracy does not seek to concentrate power; it seeks to diffuse it - and urban self-government lies at the heart of Western Civilisation, which is where modern democracy has taken root.
It is also important to note where exactly modern democracy has gone wrong - not only in the West, but also in other parts of the world to which it has been exported, like Japan and India. In the past, the age of "classical liberalism," the highest political "value" was Liberty. The political strategy employed to attain this Liberty was "limiting" the powers of The State. If the State is thus limited to certain essential functions alone, the sphere of Liberty is maximised, and taxation is simultaneously minimised - and this is "political economy." The people are possessed of both Property as well as Liberty. With these, the progress of Civilisation is assured - and this was seen as the only way to better the lot of humanity.
In those days, a wide and unbreachable gulf separated the rulers from the ruled. The ruled people clearly saw their own interests as separate and distinct from those of their rulers. This led to the wide acceptance of the doctrines of classical liberalism.
With modern, "mass democracy," there has come about a great confusion. People tend to believe that, with the vote once every few years, "we rule ourselves." Thus, even the public debt has become something that "we owe to ourselves." Because of this confusion, the idea of "limiting" the State in order to preserve Property and maximise the sphere of Liberty has all but disappeared. Democracy today is "unlimited" - and this is nothing but a not-so-subtle kind of totalitarianism. Democracy today is not limited by the Budget - because central banks can manufacture new money out of thin air. Further, all that democratic assemblies seem to be doing these days is passing more and more Legislation - and these violate Property while also taking away Liberty. If democracy is to be preserved, it has to be severely "limited." There are two essential steps that have to be taken in this regard: first, the ability of the democratic State to print money must go - so that it is limited to its Budget; and second, Property must be inviolable, so Liberty can prevail. I hope these ideas take root in Burma, and a libertarian think-tank is established there to advise Aung San Suu Kyi.
I will conclude with the statement that emerged from the G-20 meet - the solemn promise that all these great democracies will not engage in "competitive devaluation" of their fiat paper currencies. Poppycock! Don't believe a word of this. When I was a small boy, the US dollar was worth 8 rupees or so; today, it is 45 rupees. Gold was $35 an ounce when Nixon broke the US dollar's ties with the yellow metal; and today, gold is worth over $1000 an ounce.
The lesson: We must "limit" democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment