The United States reported 1.35 million new coronavirus infections on Monday, according to a Reuters tally, the highest daily total for any country in the world as the spread of the highly contagious Omicron variant showed no signs of slowing.
`
The previous record was 1.03 million cases on Jan. 3. A large number of cases are reported each Monday due to many states not reporting over the weekend. The seven-day average for new cases has tripled in two weeks to over 700,000 new infections a day.
`
The record in new cases came the same day as the nation saw the number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients also hit an all-time high, having doubled in three weeks, according to a Reuters tally.
`
There were more than 136,604 people hospitalized with COVID-19, surpassing the record of 132,051 set in January last year.
While the Omicron variant is potentially less severe, health officials have warned that the sheer number of infections could strain hospital systems, some of which have already suspended elective procedures as they struggle to handle the increase in patients and staff shortages.
`
The surge in cases has disrupted schools, which are struggling with absences of staff, teachers and bus drivers.
`
Chicago canceled classes for a fourth day as the district and teachers failed to agree on how to deal with increased infections.
`
New York City suspended service on three subway lines as a large number of workers were out sick, according to its Twitter account. Companies' plans for workers to return to office have also been derailed.
`
Deaths are averaging 1,700 per day, up from about 1,400 in recent days but within levels seen earlier this winter.
`
A redesigned COVID-19 vaccine that specifically targets the Omicron variant is likely needed, Pfizer Inc's (PFE.N) CEO said on Monday, adding his company could have one ready to launch by March.
A PARADIGM shift occurs when the usual ways of thinking or doing things are replaced by new and different ways. This normally happens when fundamentals are progressively changed.
Developing a country takes time, starting with a holistic education that seeks to address the emotional, social and ethical needs of students, apart from academic studies and skills training. Students must reflect on their actions and how they impact the local and global community, and engage in projects that require critical thinking skills towards solving real-world problems.
But if education is centred on rote learning just to pass school examinations and plagiarism to gain academic qualifications, young adults will be unproductive, and the country will remain poor. This is evident in Malaysia as huge numbers of graduates are churned out every year but most are underemployed or remain unemployed for months.
Not in Singapore, though. It separated from Malaysia in 1965 and developed on its own to become a rich nation, thanks mainly to good governance and sound education. Although the cost of living in Singapore is high to match the high living standards, the average Singaporean salary is several times higher than in Malaysia, allowing for more disposable income and savings. Hence, there are about a million Malaysians, or former Malaysians, residing in Singapore, and another 350,000 workers and students who commuted daily from Johor in pre-pandemic times. Malaysia had also lost much of its human capital to many countries around the world over the years, initially to Britain and then to the United States and Australia and, in recent years, China.
While other non-english speaking countries have adopted or promoted English as their second language to be better connected to the world, we are doing the exact opposite. In fact, some politicians seem bent on nurturing island mentalities in cultivating their support base by sowing fear of other races, religions and languages. Those who truly love their own race, religion and language would focus on lifting their community, which would be admired universally. But such efforts require too much hard work, it seems.
Sadly, our country will not be transformed if people remain insular, if we remain, as the Malay proverb puts it, “katak di bawah tempurung” (frog under a coconut) shell).
One of the best ways for Malaysians to be exposed to the world is to be multilingual by not only learning our national language but also other important languages. Mandarin and Tamil could easily be learned in vernacular primary schools, and these students could later contribute greatly to economic and cultural ties with China and South India. Likewise for Arabic, Japanese, Korean, German, French and Spanish. In any case, learning at least three languages would expose Malaysians to a great variety of cultures and ideas.
Apart from the valuable exposure gained by communicating with people of different races, religion and cultures, it is also necessary for those at the top to come down from their ivory towers.
Recently, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Wee Ka Siong made a surprise visit to the Road Transport Department in Johor Baru and was shocked by the long queue for counter service. He rightfully described the counter service system as “ancient”. He then used Facebook to voice his unhappiness about a host of problems and the immediate actions that he had taken.
If we wish to modernise, we should not continue to be bogged down by antiquated methods and mindsets. We should continuously take small, medium and large incremental steps to move forward.
If not, we will stagnate and be left behind while other countries, such as Indonesia, race ahead. But some of our politicians seem to prefer to harp on racial, religious and language issues, and raise petty matters in Parliament hoping to gain popularity.
Perhaps a paradigm shift will only occur when a coalition wins by a two-thirds majority in the next general elections and the economy ends up in total shambles. Perhaps if everyone is forced to work together to rescue our country from total disaster, we could still rise from the ashes.
The Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee presides over the sixth plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in Beijing, capital of China. Photo: Xinhua
Vigorous Chinese democracy vs aging Western one: Global Times editorial
"Whole-process people's democracy" has been officially written into the Communiqué of the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. At Friday's press conference on the sixth plenum, the concept has been further clarified, which has garnered extensive attention from home and abroad.
Democracy is one of the important results of human society's development. It is destined to form different gene combinations in different social environments and manifest itself in various forms, just like that of plants and flowers.
The US and the West have always regarded themselves as property owners and missionaries of democracy, as if they are issuing democratic licenses to the world, preaching to people of other countries about how to be democratic and judging who is democratic and who is not. But they are no longer able to carry on such moves.
China has risen. We hold high the banner of people-centered socialist democracy, and develop an efficient market economy based on China's political system. We have rapidly improved livelihood and eliminated poverty, gaining remarkable and globally eye-catching economic and social achievements.
In this process, elements of democracy with Chinese characteristics have continued to develop and grow. Governments at various levels have been exploring how to make democracy truly effective in all areas. This has formed the goal-oriented democratic construction in which the people are masters of the country. From election to consultations, from policymaking to management and supervision, all have been carried out, upgraded and institutionalized under the promotion of China's fundamental political system. As a result, people's wishes and opinions can always be reported to governments at different levels rapidly. The Party's leadership has ensured that national governance always responds to the demands of the broadest masses of people and can make the most reasonable plan based on the interests of all groups in the society. This will make people the country's masters.
China has developed democracy, but avoided populist radicalism. Everyone has the right to share the fruits of national development but vicious conflicts have been prevented among different interests groups. Although people often express opinions on the internet, sometimes in a fierce manner, China's social governance has generally maintained order. There are very few disruptions caused by partial or large-scale disorder.
The US and the West still regard their democracy as a hallmark. Their political systems have been seriously aging after hundreds of years. Powerful Western interest groups seek to obtain from and exploit their systems in radical ways regardless of the damage they would cause, which has made Western-style democracy full of drawbacks such as populism, political struggles, derailed people participation, and manipulated and misguided elections.
Western-style democracy is still able to have a say in the international public opinion arena. It's because of the economic and social strength accumulated in history. Those countries are still the most developed ones, which has helped them conceal their ugliness and fool the world with their sophistries and cover-ups.
However, some Western elites are now a little bit panicked. They know the West is plagued by problematic politics and a sluggish economy. Meanwhile, they have seen the fast development of China. After the outbreak of COVID-19, China's "people first" political ideology has quickly transformed to great achievements in fighting the epidemic. They worry that if this continues, the fundamental flaws in their narratives about democracy will be exposed, and the perception that their political systems are "bad" will spread throughout the world.
The US and some Western countries in recent years have frantically increased their attacks on China's political system. Doing so is of no help to solve the decline of their own systems. The political dividends of Western-style democracy have already been seriously overdrawn. Now the shortcomings of Western-style democracy have been exposed and further fermented, which is consuming the competitiveness of those countries.
Those Western political elites want to eliminate the challenge of democratic diversity and change the competition rules in the globalization era by stifling China's development. However, China is a super-scale market and a powerful country. It's a dead end if they attempt to solve their own difficulties by changing China.
The Chinese and Western democratic systems could learn from each other and carry out sound competition. Unfortunately, some political elites in the US and West stubbornly seek to turn the two systems into antagonistic relations. Then they will have to bear the long-term consequences of their actions. China will develop faster than them in the long run. After passing a critical point -it's doomed to appear in future - the US and West's political confidence will be greatly shaken. Their unrealistic flattery of Western-style democracy will collapse.
The world is seeing active reflections and hot debates over democracy. Which kind of democracy is good is not defined by a war of words. The good democracy must effectively provide economic and social development with a steady stream of impetus and promote the well-being of the broad masses of people. Facts will be the best judge.
China is making great efforts to bring benefits to its people and contribute positively to building a community with a shared future for mankind. We are earnest explorers of a democratic system that fits our own conditions. Our efforts and success have received much attention and praises from a vast number of developing countries. We have expanded people's political vision, and contributed important experiences.
Developing countries generally face pressure from the US and the West. Due to their size, many countries are unable to withstand the pressure to explore an independent democratic paradigm. China's practice is in line with their interests, bringing the light of freedom to the world when it comes to the national choice of development path.
Democracy not 'patent' of the West; US democracy summit a 'huge irony' aiming to split world: senior CPC official
Photo: Zhao Juecheng/GT
The US' democracy summit convened next month with the attempt to "revive" Western democracy amid mounting democratic problems in their countries is a huge irony, as its purpose is simply to suppress other countries and divide the world into different camps, a senior Chinese official said on Friday.
Jiang Jinquan,director of the Policy Research Office of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, made the remarks at Friday's press conference on the sixth plenary session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
He said democracy is not a patent of the West, nor can it be defined by the West. Western democracy is a democracy dominated by capital, a democracy of the rich, not true democracy.
Some Western countries have shown a hollowing out of democracy,triggering dissatisfaction among their fellow people, but they are still trying to impose their democratic model on other countries. Color revolutions in recent years ago have resulted in disasters to local people, which the people of the world have become increasingly aware of, Jiang said in response to a question on comparison between China's whole-process people's democracy and Western democracy.
Jiang listed several polls as an example. According to a new survey from the Pew Research Centre, 57 percent of global respondents and 72 percent of Americans said that US democracy used to be a good example but has not been recently.
According to an NPR poll, 81 percent of US adults say the future of US democracy is under threat.
In contrast, two recent polls released by a US polling agency show that Chinese people's satisfaction with the CPC and the Chinese government is 95 percent and 98 percent, respectively.
Democracy is not for decoration, but for solving people's problems. Whether a country is democratic or not depends on whether its people are the masters of the country, whether its people have the right to vote and more importantly, whether they have the right to participate widely. It depends on what promises are made during the election process, but more importantly, it depends on how many of these promises are fulfilled after an election, Jiang said.
"Democracy is not true if the people are awakened only at the time of voting and then fall into hibernation, if they can only listen to the election slogans but have no say after the election, if they are favored only at the time of campaigning and then are left out after the election," Jiang said.
Jiang said the CPC has realized that China's political civilization and political system must be deeply rooted in the mind of Chinese society. Copying other countries' political systems will not work and may even destroy the country's future.
Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has adhered to the path of political development under socialism with Chinese characteristics and upheld the leadership of the Party and the position of the people as masters of the country, has resolutely resisted the erosion and influence of the Western political trend of so-called "constitutionalism", ruling party rotation, and developed a democratic road of whole-process people's democracy, Jiang said.
The Chinese people have a high degree of confidence in their political system,and the fundamental reason lies in the fact that whole-process people's democracy is highly democratic, fully fledged and deeply welcomed by the Chinese people. This is true people's democracy, Jiang said.
To break out of its paralysis, the West needs to take a hard look and address three key challenges, Rethinking Democracy, the Social Contract, and Globalization
Govt fails in bid to forfeit 1MDB-linked assets from Najib, family and others
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today ordered the government to immediately return assets which were seized from former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, their three children and several others.
Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan made the order after dismissing the government's application which sought to forfeit hundreds of items including designer handbags, vehicles and cash in various currencies said to be linked to the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal.
In his decision, Zaini said the prosecution had failed to prove that the properties seized were connected to unlawful activities.
He said there was no evidence to show that the properties seized from Najib, Rosmah, their children Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz (Najib's stepson), Nor Ashman and Nooryana Najwa, were bought using money in the former prime minister's bank accounts.
The prosecution, he said, had in fact admitted that some of the seized properties were gifts.
He said the prosecution's argument that the cash and properties in question could have been gained from the monies deposited in Najib's bank accounts was based on presumption.
"The prosecution merely listed down the properties seized and their value, and in turn concluded that these respondents do not have the means to such a huge amount of cash or to purchase these properties based on their income.
"They had surmised that the cash and properties concerned could have only been gained from the monies deposited in the first respondent's (Najib) accounts.
"It is apparent that the applicant had only come to this conclusion based on presumption," he said.
The judge added that there was lack of evidence to prove that there was a direct link between the monies that were alleged to have been illegally gained to the cash found and the properties bought.
He said there was simply no nexus proven in the case.
He also rejected the government's bid to forfeit the monies kept in three Hong Leong bank accounts and the RM15 million bungalow in Penang belonging to Goh Gaik Ewe, the mother of fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho saying that the prosecution had failed to prove that the bank accounts were related to or had been used for the commission of unlawful activities.
He said the relationship between Goh and any of the characters or entities in the 1MDB affairs was also conspicuously missing.
"The applicant did not offer any evidence to show how the monies deposited into these bank accounts were linked to any illegal transactions or that they were proceeds of unlawful activities.
"As for the bungalow, there was simply no averment whatsoever in any of the applicant's affidavits pertaining to it," he said.
The others who get to keep their monies following the government's failure in its bid to forfeit the assets were company Senijauhar Sdn Bhd, Aiman Ruslan, former Goldman Sachs banker Roger Ng and his wife Lim Hwee Bin.
The court however, allowed the government's bid to forfeit the assets from the respondents that did not contest the application namely Mohd Kyizzad Mesran, Yayasan Rakyat 1Malaysia, Yayasan Semesta, Yayasan Mustika Kasih and Rembulan Kembara Sdn Bhd and those who have absconded who were former 1MDB officers Kee Kok Thiam, Tan Vern Tact and Terence Geh Choh Hun.
Deputy public prosecutor Harris Ong Mohd Jeffrey Ong informed the court that the prosecution will be filing an appeal against the decision and asked for a stay of the order to return money to the respondents.
However, Zaini said the court will not make any order for a stay.
"If the forfeiture application is denied, it is a natural progression that the prosecution should return it (properties) back (to the respondents)," the judge said.
On May 8, 2019, the Attorney General's Chambers filed a notice of motion to forfeit hundreds of items, allegedly linked to 1MDB scandal, including handbags of various brands and 27 vehicles seized from Najib, Rosmah, their three children, as well as 13 individuals and companies.
In addition, money amounting to more than RM18 million in several bank accounts at Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd, Al-Rajhi Bank Bhd, Malayan Banking Bhd, CIMB Bank Bhd, RHB Bank Bhd, Public Bank Bhd, AmBank Bhd and Hong Leong Bank Bhd, that was frozen between Aug 16, 2018 and March 11, 2019.
Among the items mentioned in the forfeiture notice are handbags, shoes and watches of various brands, as well as cash in various currencies that were seized by the police on May 17, 2018 and June 11, 2018, as well as 27 Nissan vehicles that were seized on Aug 2, 2018 and a piece of land in Tanjung Bungah, Penang.
Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire with Michael Hudson
https://youtu.be/NK0ls5hV_5Y
The Rise and Fall of Great Powers? America, China, and the Global Order
When the meek are weak, they suffer because they must. But when the strong are insecure, that is when war begins.
AS tensions over the Taiwan Strait mount, everyone needs to think through whether war is inevitable.
Leon Trotsky once said: “You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you.”
And if we slip into war by what World War I historian Barbara Tuchman called the “March of Folly”, can the great powers step back from mutual nuclear annihilation?
When the world’s unipolar power incurred more pandemic deaths (at last count 752,000) and got defeated in Afghanistan by tribal warriors, no one should be surprised to ask whether America (and by extension Western civilisation) is in a decline.
The prestigious US magazine Foreign Affairs devoted three issues this year to: “Can America Recover?”, “Decline and Fall – Can America ever Lead Again?” and “Can China Keep Rising?”
For those reading the endless barrage of invectives against America’s rivals, it certainly feels like the Cold War has returned with a vengeance.
However, for Greta Thunberg and fellow climate activists, surely the world leaders’ priority is to work together to address our looming climate disaster.
Why are alphas fighting in a burning planet? Shouldn’t we call “time out” to see how to address collectively the urgent and existential issues of human and planetary distress?
Next month, the World Economic Forum is meeting in Dubai with an agenda to move from a Great Reset to a Grand Narrative Initiative “to shape the contours of a more prosperous and inclusive future for humanity that is also more respectful of nature.”
Grand Narrative may sound like a media story but the reality is that the masses are unlikely to buy an elite-driven dream until they are part of the conversation.
Take Harvard historian Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations” narrative. Written in 1996, Huntington seemed prescient in predicting the clash between Western civilisation and the rest, namely, Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic and Latin American.
He asked poignantly: “The central theme for the West is whether, quite apart from our external challenges, it is capable of stopping and reversing the internal process of decay. Can the West renew itself or will sustained internal rot simply accelerate its end and/or subordination to other economically and demographically more dynamic civilisations?”
Huntington basically reflected the worry of British historian Arnold Toynbee (18891975) that since civilisations are born out of primitive societies, the key is whether the elites can respond effectively to new challenges, internal or external.
Toynbee saw clearer than other Western historians like Gibbon (Decline and Fall of Roman Empire) that collapses are not necessarily due to barbarian invasions but whether the ruling elite can overcome their own greed or interests to address the new challenges.
In pure economic, financial, technology and military terms, few question that the West remains superior in almost all aspects, except in population numbers.
According to the Maddison projections of population and GDP, the rich countries (essentially Western Europe, plus Western offshoots (the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and Japan would be 947 million people and 36.3% of world GDP by 2030, whereas Asia (China, India and other parts of Asia) would have a population of 4.7 billion and 49.6% of GDP.
This reverses the 2003 position when the West (including Japan) accounted for half of world GDP, compared with one-third for Asia.
The dramatic reversal is due to the rise of China, India and the rest of Asia to higher-middle-income levels by 2030, mainly through trade and catch-up in technology.
In the coming decades, roughly one billion rich West must contend with the rising powers of China (1.4 billion), India (1.3 billion) and Islamic countries (1+ billion), which have cultures and ideologies very different from the West.
If the planet heats up as expected, expect more Latin Americans, Africans and Middle East poor arriving on the West’s borders to migrate.
At the same time, with the American demonisation of Russia and China pushing them closer together, the United States is confronting at least three fronts (including the Middle East) amid a fractious domestic arena, where political polarisation prevents policy cohesion and continuity.
This current situation reminds Islamic countries following their great historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD) of the cycle of dynastic and empires that Islam went through.
When the social cohesion or bonds (asabiya) is strong, there is state legitimacy and empires rise. When it is weak, dynasties fall and empires are lost.
After the Jan 6, 2020 insurrection in Washington DC, many are inclined to believe that fratricidal tribalism is happening now inside America.
Similarly, Chinese macro-historians Sima Qian (Records of the Grand Historian, 146-86 BC) and Sima Guang (Comprehensive Mirror for Governance, 1019-1086 AD) also recorded that empires fall not so much from external invasion but internal decay.
In Yale, historian (Rise and Fall of Great Powers) Paul Kennedy’s terminology has the United States arrived at the point of “imperial over-reach”, when the country’s global ambitions and responsibilities exceed its financial and industrial capacity.
After all, the US government debt has reached as high as the end of World War II level without even starting World War III.
But all historians know that rise, decline or fall is never pre-ordained. The past is not a scientific linear predictor of the future. The unipolar order has weakened, without any grand bargain between the great powers on what the new order should even begin to look like.
Any grand bargain requires the incumbent hegemon to admit that there are equals and peers in power that want the rules of the game reset from the old order.
This does not mean that anyone will replace the United States soon because everyone wants to buy time to set their own house in order after the pandemic.
In short, before any Grand Narrative, we need a whole series of conversations with all sides, from the weakest to the most powerful, on what individually and collectively the post-pandemic order should look like.
There can never be one Grand Narrative by the elites until there are enough dialogues between the many.
When the meek are weak, they suffer because they must. But when the strong are insecure, that is when war begins.
By ANDREW SHENG. Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ...
Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!
` In short, historically it was the Church that gave the moral blessing
for colonisation, slavery and genocide during the Age of Globalisation.
The tragedy is that the Doctrine of Discovery is now embodied in US
laws.
To break out of its paralysis, the West needs to take a hard look and address three key challenges
The rise of the populist variant in the West and the rapid ascent of China in the East have prompted a rethinking of how democratic systems work - or don't. The creation of new classes of winners and losers as a consequence of globalisation and digital capitalism is also challenging how we think about the social contract and how wealth is shared. - Nathan Gardels and Nicolas Berggruen
Police officers watch as protesters take part in a rally against Covid-19 vaccine mandates, in Santa Monica, California, on Aug 29, 2021.PHOTO: AFP
Rethinking Democracy, the Social Contract, and Globalization
The rise of populism in the West, the rise of China in the East and the spread of peer-driven social media everywhere have stirred a rethinking of how democratic systems work—or don’t. The creation of new classes of winners and losers as a result of globalization and digital capitalism is also challenging how we think about the social contract and how wealth is shared.
The worst fear of America’s Founders—that democracy would empower demagogues—was realized in the 2016 US presidential election, when the ballot box unleashed some of the darkest forces in the body politic. Similarly, in Europe an anti-establishment political awakening of both populism and right-wing neonationalism is consigning the mainstream centrist political parties that once dominated the post–World War II political order to the margins.
Donald Trump’s election and the populist surge in Europe did not cause this crisis of governance. They are symptoms of the decay of democratic institutions across the West that, captured by the organized special interests of an insider establishment have failed to address the dislocations of globalization and the disruptions of rapid technological change. To add danger to decay, the fevered partisans of populism are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, assaulting the very integrity of institutional checks and balances that guarantee the enduring survival of republics. The revolt against a moribund political class has transmuted into a revolt against governance itself.
Because neither the stakeholders of the waning status quo nor the upstarts of populism have offered any effective, systemic solutions to what ails the West, protracted polarization and paralysis have set in.
The Paradoxes of Governance in the Digital Age
These trials of the West are bound up with, and to a significant extent driven by, two related developments: the growing fragmentation of mass society into diverse tribes fortified by the participatory power of social media, and the advent of digital capitalism, which is divorcing productivity and wealth creation from employment and income.
We argue that these shifts present twin paradoxical challenges for governance.
First, the paradox of democracy in the age of peer-driven social networks is that, because there is more participation than ever before, never has the need been greater for countervailing practices and institutions to impartially establish facts, deliberate wise choices, mediate fair trade-offs, and forge consensus that can sustain long-term implementation of policies. Despite expectations that the Internet Age would create an informed public more capable of self-government than ever before in history, fake news, hate speech, and “alternative facts” have seriously degraded the civic discourse.
Second, the paradox of the political economy in the age of digital capitalism is that the more dynamic a perpetually innovating knowledge-driven economy is, the more robust a redefined safety net and opportunity web must be to cope with the steady disruption and gaps in wealth and power that will result.
To meet these challenges, we propose a novel approach to renovating democratic institutions that integrates new forms of direct participation into present practices of representative government while restoring to popular sovereignty the kind of deliberative ballast the American Founding Fathers thought so crucial to avoiding the suicide of republics. We further propose ways to spread wealth and opportunity fairly in a future in which intelligent machines are on track to displace labor, depress wages, and transform the nature of work to an unprecedented degree.
Where China Comes In
When populists rail against globalization that has undermined their standard of living through trade agreements, they mostly have China in mind. Few reflect that China was able to take maximum advantage of the post–Cold War US-led world order that promoted open trade and free markets precisely because of its consensus-driven and long-term-oriented one-party political system. China has shown the path to prosperity is not incompatible with authoritarian rule.
In this sense, China’s tenacious rise over the past three decades holds up a harsh mirror to an increasingly dysfunctional West. The current US president, who rode an anti-globalization wave to power, relishes battling his way through every twenty-four-hour news cycle by firing off barbed tweets at sundry foes. By contrast, China’s near-dictatorial leader has used his amassed clout to lay out a roadmap for the next thirty years.
If the price of political freedom is division and polarization, it comes at a steep opportunity cost. As the West—including Europe, riven now by populist and separatist movements—stalls in internal acrimony, China is boldly striding ahead. It has proactively set its sights on conquering the latest artificial intelligence technology, reviving the ancient Silk Road as “the next phase of globalization,” taking the lead on climate change, and shaping the next world order in its image. If the West does not hear this wake-up call loud and clear, it is destined to somnambulate into second-class status on the world stage.
This is not, of course, to suggest in any way that the West turn toward autocracy and authoritarianism. Rather, it is to say that unless democracies look beyond the short-term horizon of the next election cycle and find ways to reach a governing consensus, they will be left in the dust by the oncoming future. If the discourse continues to deteriorate into a contest over who dominates the viral memes of the moment, and if democracy comes to mean sanctifying the splintering of society into a plethora of special interests, partisan tribes, and endless acronymic identities instead of seeking common ground, there is little hope of competing successfully with a unified juggernaut like China. Waiting for China to stumble is a foolish fallback.
Unlike the Soviet Union at the time of the Sputnik challenge in the late 1950s and early 1960s, China today possesses an economic and technological prowess the Soviet Union never remotely approached. Whether in conflict or cooperation, China will be a large presence in our future.
It is in that context that we examine the strengths and weakness of China’s system as a spur to thinking through our own challenges. To turn the old Chinese saying toward ourselves, “The stones from hills yonder can polish jade at home.”
Taking Back Control
To set the frame for rethinking democracy and the political economy, we argue that the anxiety behind the populist reaction is rooted in the uncertainties posed by the great transformations under way, from the intrusions of globalization on how sovereign communities govern their affairs, to such rapid advances in technology as social media and robotics, to the increasingly multicultural composition of all societies. Change is so enormous that individuals and communities alike feel they are drowning in the swell of seemingly anonymous forces and want to “take back control” of their lives at a scale and stride they can manage. They crave the dignity of living in a society in which their identity matters and that attends to their concerns. Effectively aligning political practices and institutions so as to confront these challenges head-on will make the difference between a world falling apart and a world coming together.
Critics of globalization argue that nation-states and communities must retrieve the capacity to make decisions that reflect their way of life and maintain the integrity of their norms and institutions, decisions the maligned cosmopolitan caste has handed over to distant trade tribunals or other global institutions managed by strangers. Those decisions, they rightly say, ought to be made through “democratic deliberation” by sovereign peoples. Yet that neat logic ignores the reality of decay and dysfunction we have already noted. Therefore, “taking back control” must, first and foremost, mean renovating democratic practices and institutions themselves.
The Politics of Renovation
The most responsible course of change in modern societies is renovation.
Renovation is the point of equilibrium between creation and destruction, whereby what is valuable is saved and what is outmoded or dysfunctional is discarded. It entails a long march through society’s institutions at a pace of change our incremental natures can absorb. Renovation shepherds the new into the old, buffering the damage of dislocation that at first outweighs longer-term benefits. In the new age of perpetual disruption, renovation is the constant of governance. Its aim is transition through evolutionary stability, within societies and in relations among nation-states and global networks.
In this book, we propose three ways to think about how to renovate democracy, the social contract, and global interconnectivity in order to take back control:
Empowering participation without populism by integrating social networks and direct democracy into the system through the establishment of new mediating institutions that complement representative government
Reconfiguring the social contract to protect workers instead of jobs while spreading the wealth of digital capitalism by providing all citizens not only with the skills of the future but also with an equity share in “owning the robots.” We call this universal basic capital. The aim here is to enhance the skills and asserts of the less well-off in the first place – predistribution – as a complement to redistribution of wealth for public higher education or other public goods. The best way to fight inequality in the digital age is to spread the equity around.
Harnessing globalization through “positive nationalism,” which means an allegiance to the values of an inclusive society instead of nationalistic incantation, albeit tempered by an understanding that open societies need defined borders. It also means dialing back the hyper-globalization of “one size fits all” global trade agreements to leave room for industrial policies that compensate for the dislocations of integrated global markets. To temper the deepening rivalry, even economic decoupling underway between the US and China, we call for a “partnership of rivals” on climate action. If there is not some area of common intents, all else will dwell in the shadow of distrust and lead to a new Cold War, the breakup of the world into geopolitical blocs and worse.
These proposals, of course, do not exhaust the answers to the panoply of daunting challenges we have raised. But they do suggest ways we might think about how to change present social and political arrangements for addressing those challenges. We do not insist that we are somehow the font of all wisdom but regard our endeavor as a point of departure that deepens and expands the debate. Without concrete propositions to criticize and amend, the discourse about change is only an airy exchange that fails to move the needle.
Nicolas Berggruen and Nathan Gardels are the founders of the Berggruen Institute and the authors of Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century: A Middle Way between West and East (2012). Their latest work, Renovating Democracy: Governing in the Age of Globalization and Digital Capitalism (2019), is the first in a Berggruen Institute series on the “Great Transformations” published by the University of California Press (UC
` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s
the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change
...
Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!
` In short, historically it was the Church that gave the moral blessing
for colonisation, slavery and genocide during the Age of Globalisation.
The tragedy is that the Doctrine of Discovery is now embodied in US
laws.
Botched Afghan retreat reveals an America struggling to contain China
`
Unable to better China in positive competition and with military
options unfeasible, the US can only fall back on the ‘moral high
ground’. But in its hasty Afghan withdrawal, to focus on China, the US
risks losing even this
Weekly Trends - Graphs - Countries - News
Nicolas Berggruen and Nathan Gardels are the founders of the Berggruen Institute and the authors of Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century: A Middle Way between West and East (2012). Their latest work, Renovating Democracy: Governing in the Age of Globalization and Digital Capitalism (2019), is the first in a Berggruen Institute series on the “
