The easiest solution would appear to be simply to get rid of those leaders who seem happy to invade and destroy. Three names that immediately come to mind are Trump, Putin and Netanyahu. All three have been associated with actions that their critics regard as heinous, but they are also linked in another way: each has a very strong incentive to remain in power. So, none of them is likely to go quietly. We need to think of something else.
It is often argued that ordinary people get the government they deserve. It is us who put Trump back in the White House; it is us who allow Andy Burnham to become UK Prime Minister without actually voting directly for him; and it is us who seemingly do little to resist authoritarianism in places such as Russia, Turkey and so many other countries.
Which brings me to democracy. The problem, some would argue, is that it simply doesn’t work very well. Even someone still revered in Britain today, Winston Churchill, famously described democracy as “the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” He knew something about the subject: twice Prime Minister, prolific author of political histories, and one of the principal figures in Britain’s struggle to preserve democracy against the great totalitarian threats of the twentieth century.
But how can it be a good idea to put the future of a nation in the hands of millions of people, many of whom may know very little about politics, economics, history or international affairs? We get one vote each, yet we are not equal in our ability to make political decisions. Some of us are well educated and able to reach conclusions based on the information we can absorb. Others may be more easily influenced by whatever happens to be shouted loudest at them.
And in the modern media age, democracy increasingly risks becoming a television popularity contest. Politicians compete for attention with soundbites, simplistic promises, short-term populist policies and, occasionally, outright lies. And plenty of voters are prepared to believe them.
Socrates, according to Plato, had a rather good analogy for this. Imagine that you are about to embark on a long sea voyage. Who would you want deciding who should captain the ship? Absolutely anyone who happened to get the most votes, or someone who actually understood navigation, seamanship and the demands of the sea? I rest my case.
So here’s my solution. I am a big fan of benign dictators. One of my great heroes is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of modern Turkey. He accumulated enormous political power and used it to transform his country — modernising and secularising Turkey and introducing sweeping political and social reforms. His supporters regard his legacy as one of national transformation rather than personal enrichment.
And there, surely, is the answer. All we need is 195 Atatürks. One for every country in the world. Give each of them absolute power, provide them with the wisdom to know exactly what to do with it, make sure they have no interest in personal wealth or glory, and — hey presto — the world becomes a paradise for every living creature.
Simple.
There is, admittedly, one tiny problem. How do we find the 195 Atatürks? Come on now. I’ve shown you the way forward. The rest is up to you………
The world is in a mess: how do we put it right?
In the Russia of 2000, everything was going just fine. Boris Yeltsin has done the hardest job of reforming Russia in the 90s and handed the torch to Vladimir Putin, a young and energetic new President who was committed to further leading the country to progress and prosperity.
I felt the country was moving in a right direction.
The West has become, if not a friend, a partner. The world, apart from Al-Queda, seemed to be a stable and rather safe place. I’ve never thought that Bin Laden and the likes were a fundamental challenge. They were strong because, for some time, nobody was really monitoring them.
Then things began to change and clouds started to mount on the horizon. First, Vladimir Putin, rather quickly, turned out to be anybody but a Yeltsin protégé. Consequently, step by step, Russia started to sail away from being a ‘normal’ country towards some gloomy destinations filled with demons of nationalism, revenge, and authoritarianism. Equally, political freedoms, that once seemed to be unbreakable, started to fade away.
Twenty years later, Russia is at war with Ukraine, something unthinkable until recently. Moreover, we live under a real dictatorship. If somebody would have told me that in 2000, I would laugh in their face!
Plus, we’ve come through COVID that put the world on a lockdown and hit us all psychologically. Yes, I can’t yet compare it with World War I and the Russian revolution with the Civil war coming right after that, but still…
I wouldn’t dare to recommend how to change the world.
Yet, if we look at Russia, we are experiencing a national catastrophe. Honestly, I don’t see any objective reasons for it other than Vladimir Putin. He seems to be the only factor that matters in shaping today’s Russia. I think he tried and didn’t succeed as his vision of the country just doesn’t work.
Look, we are at war with a sister country where there is no way to win. I don’t even mention that there were no reasons to start it. People like me have no political rights as those we wanted to vote for are vanished, killed or banned from any political activity. The economy is more and more dependent on China. Thanks to the Kremlin’s ‘wise’ policy, Russia has lost Europe as its premium natural gas market. I can go on and on.
How to fix this mess?
Well, look at what happened after Stalin’s death. The country quickly changed to a more liberal political system and a healthier economic policy, eventually restricting Stalin’s legacy. On the other hand, just like with Stalin, history is spiraling. Millions of Russians are simply waiting because there’s no other way to put an end to the today’s madness.
The world is in a mess – how do we put it right?
A stronger UN –
A couple of years ago, in these pages, I wrote that I didn’t think Europe needed a separate Army. Emmanuel Macron had been pushing the idea and I thought it was a waste of money. NATO plus a pan-European army seemed to be a duplication. I was wrong. The biggest threat to Europe is the United States. Trump made it clear he would use force to take what is his (Greenland) if it’s not given to him.
Think I am overstating my case? Trump is fine with the idea that Russia should control Ukraine. He can’t say it in so many words but his actions are clear. The Americans want to own several countries. Nobody seems to know why beyond some vague mumbling about security. Yeah, China will have Taiwan or die trying. I have no clue why. I assume the US gets Western Europe and RU gets Eastern Europe but I don’t really know.
Unless you run one of these three countries, this seems like a pretty raw deal. A more powerful nation strips your country for whatever it wants in a giant game of thrones. The planet goes back to the eighteenth-century with wars and colonies and death.
India wants to be one of the big players in a multi-polar world and within ten years will most likely demand its share of the spoils. This may well come in the form of water from the Himalayas. China can’t allow that because they already lack water for their population. The UN cannot prevent wars and this one will be a doozy.
The American MAGA right is outraged at even the thought of a higher government. The irony is, they themselves are making the whole thing possible. I have always maintained that the rise of Democratic Socialists is the natural outcome of Trump’s wild antics. AOC owes her political rise to Donald. Neither would ever admit to such a thing.
So, if you accept my logic that the rise of the American left is a reaction to the over-reaches of the current government; then it may follow that the next step would be a strengthening of current world bodies. If Trump destroys the Republican Party, which is a very real possibility, some form of a powerful UN becomes conceivable. Maybe something like an EU.
I imagine India could go along with a powerful UN and by the time Putin is finished bleeding out Russia, RU may not even have a roll in the process. That would leave China and that’s the issue: China will never go along with such a world government voluntarily.
The China problem gets worse: They openly and publicly bribe smaller African & South American UN members to get the votes they want. It’s a successful strategy and has served China well. I’m sure they would back the money truck up and grab shovels to stop anything that would end imperialism.
So, do I think there will be a more powerful world government? No. Instead, there will be blood, bodies in piles, and war. Then… maybe.