Over the years, I have wondered, as many others, why conservatism and reactionary forces have risen so much. Even though we see, here and there, some desire for change, notably among the younger generations, the governments and political systems in place are more of the conservative or reactionary type, bordering on authoritarian.
In Europe, for instance, the example of Hungary is well known. But many other countries have slowly but surely slided from progressive/left wing political leanings to more conservative/right wing.
Obviously, many will list a plethora of arguments to justify such a shift, like a deteriorating economic situation, the threat of war, migration and many other factors which more conservative forces can leverage to underpin their policy agenda.
But I’m looking at it from a very macro scale: the overall failure of “western” type democracy to inspire the masses.
The key question is: how long does it take for a “progressive” system, one that is visionary and forward thinking, in constant evolution, promoting progress, to naturally shift into a conservative and reactionary system?
A century ago, democracy was an idea which generated much enthusiasm, hope for positive change, sparking enthusiasm and stimulating the imagination. Democracy was also in constant evolution, with many key advances in terms of civil rights, suffrage (giving women the right to vote for instance), social, economic and political rights and more.
From my vantage point, it would seem that democracy today is much less in a state of vibrant and permanent evolution, but rather in a state of attempted stasis, of consolidation and of perpetuation of the “aquis”, of the status quo. Reforms are typically superficial. New regulations and laws aren’t bringing in new revolutionary rights and advances, but build upon existing ones, simply increasing the entropic tension on the current system by adding layers upon layers of regulatory complexity. The biggest and strongest ambitions are not directed towards the evolution of the system, but towards external policy achievements such as tackling climate change, pandemics or preparing for war.
When a system stops evolving, and starts relying on maxims such as “it’s not perfect, but it’s the best system we have”, a kind of TINA argument (there is no alternative), then the message it is sending, unbeknownst to itself, is that of an evolutionary dead end. Thus to me, it is no surprise that we see a resurgence of conservatism and reactionary forces. When there is no way forward, some will attempt to take a step back.
The biggest problem of modern democracies today, is that they are more busy to paint themselves as the “best” system, spending immense energy in defending themselves from reactionary forces and attempting to quash competing emergent models which challenge its legitimacy. Just listen to your average politician: how do they talk about Web3, DAOs (decentralized autonomous organisations), blockchain and burgeoning attempts at self-governance? Mostly in terms of dangerous experimentations, with problems galore, in need of being regulated and “assimilated” into the existing legal and political framework.
Ultimately, such speeches are very similar to the speech a monarch would deliver in reaction to the “dangerous” emerging idea of democracy, or a government of the people by the people. “What heresy! People are stupid! They can’t govern themselves!” And of course, early attempts at democracy didn’t always yield the best of results. But that’s what you get when you’re forced to experiment in a state of opposition to the existing power structures: you’re bound to make mistakes.
The only truth in this reality is that everything evolves, everything changes. And whenever a system attempts at freezing time, and uses most of its resources to defend itself and maintain itself, it is a sure sign of evolutionary failure. No wonder the “west” is no longer a “model to follow”! If we can’t evolve past democracy, why bother following us into such an evolutionary cul-de-sac?
To me, the only way for Europe and other modern democracies to “lead by example” and to inspire others to follow, is by showing our ability to naturally evolve past representative democracy. Failure to do so will just cement the impending collapse of representative democracy, and a split between a devolution into a newfound authoritarian conservatism, and a forceful evolution into self-governed communities, leveraging blockchain, Web3, DAOs and the likes.
I would prefer a much smoother transition, where democracy naturally evolves towards self-governance, by gradually shifting power to communities, under the guidance and supervision of existing power structures. Not all citizens are ready for self-governance, just as most people weren’t ready for representative democracy some 300 years ago. But there are many ways a transition from one system to another can happen. One thing is certain, however: one cannot stop change or freeze time.
