A Selective Resume of the World on 1st January 2017

How do you summarize the World in 2016?

Not very easily, is one reasonable answer.

Countries with mature democratic governments struggled to deal with domestic & international events. Whilst countries with entrenched leaders ranged between outright civil war through repression and pseudo-democracy. You might describe the leaders of the largest countries with entrenched leaders as smart and powerful; however, the lessons of the 20th Century show that nationalism, “power-plays”, meddling in other countries, supporting heinous dictators and threatening the established (fully) democratic World, is likely to end badly.

The significant political events in Europe and America, which are generally described as “populist” (as opposed to liberal), have rattled policy-makers and economists. After the UK’s EU membership referendum, The Economist magazine was almost bereft at the result; as were quite a few Britons. Rather than go into a detailed analysis, a simple explanation is that the economists, policy-makers plus politicians failed to understand that a country isn’t solely a function of GDP and business with the EU. The UK is a more complex beast. The UK’s development within the EU was becoming unsustainable principally through increasing population (recommended & welcomed by the “elites”), thereby putting pressure on UK nationals in terms of wage suppression, housing, schooling, transport and access to doctors plus health care. Not to mention the misunderstanding of regions with stagnant and/or declining industries.

In deciding how to vote in the EU referendum, I suggested asking two questions:

1. What positive benefits do I receive through being a member of the EU?
2. What negative impacts are there, that result from being a member of the EU?

The answers, in my case, pointed to more unsustainable negative impacts than positive benefits. I concluded that the cost of living (i.e. reduced business costs through EU membership) was not a sufficient counterbalance to the numerous significant negative impacts. I well understand that many businesses would prefer to remain within the EU for obvious commercial reasons. The key word being commercial. The UK is not just a commercial entity, as the Referendum vote showed.

So the “elites” and businesses supporting EU membership have, hopefully, understood their somewhat narrow vision was mistaken; it certainly wasn’t holistic. Assuming the UK does disengage from the EU, voters will have full democratic control over their future. Businesses will have to adapt and the cost of living will increase, because the cost of freedom from the EU will be quite high; however, in the medium to long term, it’ll be worth it. The UK government’s challenge is to make the UK an attractive place for all companies to be based in. Are the politicians (economists and policy-makers) up to the task? I don’t recommend holding your breath, but if you're religious, please do pray!

As for the remainder of the EU, I cannot see a prosperous future without significant reform. I cannot see any leaders allowing their voters to choose between membership, or not. There appears to be no appetite to fix the numerous areas that are dysfunctional, let alone allow the highest form of democracy by asking the voters their opinion. At least the UK can leave this stagnating club and address their own issues without additional oversight.

As for the other significant mature, English-speaking democracy; has the USA peaked (as the Romans did) and started down the slippery slope? Their increasing political polarization makes it easy for countries such as Russia, China, Iran or Venezuela to tell their own people that the sole super-power is in the process of imploding. The Republicans in particular (and to a lesser degree the Democrats) have contributed to the decline in American standards and global standing. This cannot be attributed to a single President, the decline has been going on, probably since the First Iraq war and certainly since September 11th, 2001.

It’s too early to judge whether a moderately successful businessman can run the free World’s largest economy; however, after convincing sufficient voters based on copious, probably unachievable “plans”; a lot of expectations are not going to be met and the slippery slope could get steeper. This so-called populist backlash has shocked the liberal elites around the World and pleased at least one entrenched pseudo-democracy, which may have helped American voters put someone with no experience into the biggest job in the World. What a wake-up call!

So, 2017 will start to show whether the UK and US can deliver what their people have voted for. If these governments fail, the current leaders of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela (amongst others) will have a stronger case for denigrating democracy and the World will probably be a more unstable and dangerous place.

I’d like to think the US constitution will restrain President-elect Trump from attempting many of his campaign trail “policies” and that he’ll quickly learn the subtle art of diplomacy before the fires take hold in Asia and Europe. Quitting Twitter would be a good start. If the Republicans continue trying to reinstate the past, they should swap their elephant symbol for a dinosaur.

Back to the question: is western-style democracy tipping into dysfunctional decadence?

Potentially, by this time next year, we should be able to answer this question?

Decadence (noun): The act or process of falling into an inferior condition or state; deterioration or decay.