As to why this article is titled strongman, kindly read the last week's column; admittedly this may be an attempt to market my column, but hey, don't hold that against me. Everyone does that!
Before moving on, someone sent me an interesting comment relating to strongman; his view was that the article should have been titled benevolent dictator! A fictional being some will argue.
Except, the benevolent dictator is perhaps not a fictional construct. History evidences that most all countries which have joined the elite developed nation's club, and which today vehemently propagate free market policies, are obligated to a benevolent dictatorship for their success. Protectionism was the foundation on which these countries climbed the ladder of economic development to a point where they now can afford to open their markets and demand that others do so as well. Unfortunately, it makes no sense for a developing country to adopt neoliberal policies since no way on earth can their nascent businesses compete with the more efficient and deep pocketed multinational corporations. A debate I welcome.
In my opinion, the stage of development of a country is the barometer. The more developed you get, the freer your markets can be; with the proviso that there is no such thing as a free market!
Notwithstanding the above, while the prediction that democracy will soon be a passing comment in history, and the world will soon be ruled by monarchs again, is a logical construct, however there is no guarantee that all monarchs will be benevolent. A benevolent dictator is pure luck!
A recent reaffirmation from Joseph Stiglitz, American economist and recipient of Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences, strengthens my belief that I should have gone with 2030 as the date for demise of democracy, "Today, as we face a retreat from the rules-based, liberal global order, with autocratic rulers and demagogues leading countries that contain well over half the world's population, Fukuyama's idea seems quaint and naïve". For Fukuyama's quaint but naïve idea, read his book, "The End of History".
But today is not about destroying democracy, but about exposing neoliberal policies, and why the neoliberalism cult is intolerant about every other economic thought; albeit some might argue that destroying democracy or exposing neoliberalism is one and the same thing.
But what is neoliberalism? To my mind the best explanation on the net comes from the article at, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5688676/ :
"Neoliberalism is generally associated with a set of policies implemented in the 1980s by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United States of America Treasury Department, in an effort to help crisis-stricken developing countries by prescribing a series of reforms, the so-called 'Washington Consensus' policies. Such policies aimed at achieving macroeconomic stabilisation, reducing governments' role in the economy, privatising public assets, and reducing public expenditure [20]. While neoliberalism has acquired many economic, social, political, and philosophical definitions, it is usually associated with a general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach, which emphasises deregulation, minimalisation of the State, privatisation, and the emergence of individual responsibility [21].
For Mladenov ([22], p. 446), one "...important element of neoliberalism is the retrenchment of the welfare dimension of the state, which is seen as an impediment to the optimal functioning of the markets". This retrenchment can be translated into fewer, more expensive, less controlled, and of lower quality healthcare services [23]. Furthermore, this process of reducing the welfare state moves responsibility for taking care of people from the state to the free market, leading to wide disparities in the level and quality of care people receive [14]."
Is it not amusing that the paragons of neoliberalism are now concerned about social welfare? The contradiction is that they do so while still arguing in favour of free markets!
"For 40 years, elites in rich and poor countries alike promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and that the benefits would trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. Now that the evidence is in, is it any wonder that trust in elites and confidence in democracy have plummeted?" Joseph Stiglitz, "The End of Neoliberalism and the Rebirth of History", Nov 4, 2019.
Explaining neoliberalism was in the first place necessary; and the view from a famous economist that neoliberal policies had failed was also crucial to lend credibility to the context of this debate, instantaneously.
Unfortunately, the side effect of doing so is that one has utilized most of the allotted space for this article. Accordingly, this debate will have to be deferred till next time, same day, and same publication. So be there, and hopefully I don't end up drifting or digressing!
"Except that the free market model has also now collapsed. The financial crash of 2008 marked the decisive moment, but the last decade of earnings stagnation, rising inequality and climate breakdown has made it clear" Michael Jacobs, "Capitalism is in crisis", The Guardian, Nov 8, 2019.
Cometh the Strongman!
(The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. Email: [email protected])
Comments
Comments are closed.