The Mysterious “Third Way”

THE MYSTERIOUS “THIRD WAY”

WHY LENI NEEDS A NEW NARRATIVE

By: Richard Heydarian - @inquirerdotnet

05:04 AM June 26, 2018

When the Soviet Empire collapsed, much of the free world was wrapped in ecstatic celebration. The mood was particularly triumphant across the West, with Francis Fukuyama, then a budding political thinker, famously declaring the “end of history.”

Of course, Fukuyama didn’t mean it literally: Conflicts and the unfolding of everyday struggles will continue so long as there is more than one human being left on earth.

But, the millennium-old ideological battle over which system of governance was best suited for the fulfillment of our most fundamental needs and desires was now finally over, he argued.

For Fukuyama, the cocktail of liberal democratic capitalism was the ideological terminus toward which all politics would be judged henceforth. It was only the combination of capitalism and liberal democracy, he argued, that could best satisfy our innate yearning for freedom, equality, material goods, and the pursuit of happiness.

As one of the harbingers of the so-called “people power revolutions,” the Philippines was not immune to such triumphalist declarations. Over the next two decades, Filipinos took the spread and endurance of liberal democracy and capitalism for granted, as if these were not articles of faith, but instead self-evident manifestations of the basic laws of physics.

We simply couldn’t imagine any alternative mode of social organization. “Never again” became the standard belief of many thinkers and ordinary citizens alike. No to socialism. No to dictatorships. No to all these seemingly anachronistic forms of governance.

There was no point of return. History simply became a matter of how much collective freedom and prosperity we could achieve in the new century. The upshot, however, was a devout form of liberal catechism and, accordingly, dangerous complacency.

In recent years, what we’ve seen is an explosion of “democratic fatigue,” as a growing number of individuals, across both mature and fledgling democracies, give in to what I call the “strongman syndrome”: the simplistic belief that a single, decisive individual is capable of providing overnight solutions to complex 21st-century problems.

As institutions fray and fracture under the pressure of globalization and rapid change, charismatic leaders, often with an authoritarian streak, have captured the imagination of the people. Nowadays, people believe more in individuals rather than institutions. People tend to embrace promises of overnight salvation (no matter how improbable) rather than reformist-gradualist politics (no matter how sensible).

Whether it’s Narendra Modi of India or Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, unconventional and often authoritarian leaders have managed to tighten their grip on Asia’s oldest democracies.

This is the new zeitgeist, and it’s precisely why appealing to traditional values of liberal democracy no longer gain traction as in the past. The “liberal moment”—a historical exception—is now over.

Nowadays, what people seek are inclusive development, order and decisive leaders, precisely the values that were deemed missing in preceding liberal-reformist statesmen who advocated business confidence, political freedom and gradual reform. Today, the new “never again” is: “No more to feckless liberals in office!”

Yet the lesson of the past decade is that authoritarian populists will reign supreme, almost regardless of their actual performance in office (think of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela), so long as there is no robust opposition with a convincing political narrative.

And this brings us to Leni Robredo. As the de facto leader of the opposition, the Vice President should step up to the plate by forwarding a new narrative that would transcend the frailties of liberal democrats as well as the pitfalls of authoritarian populists.

Simply criticizing the contradictions of populist authoritarianism won’t do it. Hers should be a positive vision that recognizes our atavistic tendencies while appealing to the better angels of our soul. Hers should be a narrative that shows how order can only come through the rule of law, that inclusive development can go hand in hand with business confidence, and that deliberate decision-making trumps erratic decisiveness.

What’s at stake is the soul of Philippine democracy.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/114178/leni-needs-new-narrative-1#ixzz5OZaoD65e

LENI AND THE ‘THIRD WAY’

By: Richard Heydarian - @inquirerdotnet

05:05 AM July 10, 2018

“There is nothing permanent except change,” ancient philosopher Heraclitus once observed. In the world of politics, no principle could be truer. We live in a post-ideological era, which is paradoxically both modern and medieval.

On one hand, the decline of ideology as a force for social mobilization is a reflection of the emergence of postmodernism, an inherently pluralist state of mind built on the belief that there is no singular truth. As British historian Perry Anderson observed in “The Origins of Postmodernity” (1998), it all began with avant-garde architectural and artistic experimentations that defied the rigidities of modernism.

…By the end of the 20th century, no singular ideology, in its traditional sense at least, had managed to hold sway among large sections of society. The collapse of the Soviet Union made capitalism the default reality for the entire humanity.

As a result, many leftist-progressive parties in the West confronted an existential crisis. Their ability to mobilize their base was significantly hampered by the collective loss of confidence in absolute truths, whether political or religious.

Our age is also one of medieval tribalism marked by charismatic leaders—men and women who are endowed, as Max Weber memorably put it, with perceived “supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” Not only are ordinary voters less attached to ideology, they are also more drawn to such polarizing and tough-talking leaders, who skillfully tap into their basic fears and instincts.

More than policy, what matters to most voters nowadays is affinity and trust—a mystical connection to political leaders who promise certainty and provide a sense of belonging amid dizzying change.

In the Philippines, the liberal-democratic opposition confronts a similar dilemma. Standard slogans of human rights, civil liberties and political freedom are far less appealing to average voters today than during the heyday of democratic struggle in the past century.

As the de facto leader of the opposition, Leni Robredo has found herself in a similar situation with progressive-leftist leaders in the West throughout the 1990s. Yet there are valuable strategic lessons to be drawn from the latter group’s struggles.

Unwilling to concede the political arena to an ascendant conservatism, a younger generation of progressive leaders opted for a new ideological synthesis, the so-called “third way.” At the forefront of this effort were the likes of Tony Blair, who would become one of the longest-serving British prime ministers, and Bill Clinton, one of the most successful politicians in American history.

Their solution, and subsequent electoral success, was based on the recognition that traditional progressive-socialist ideals no longer appealed to vast sections of society. By fusing economic pragmatism with progressive values of tolerance and social welfare, they managed to establish a potent new political narrative that made the left electorally dominant.

They promised economic growth as well as order. Crucially, both Blair and Clinton recognized the instinctive power of personal charisma by building affective bonds with ordinary voters. This way, they managed to sideline their right-wing rivals like none of their colleagues, though, over time, they also began to lose touch with their progressive roots.

Thus, the challenge for liberal-democratic leaders in the Philippines is to preserve their fidelity to their fundamental principles, such as the inviolability of human dignity and rights, while weaving a new political narrative that recognizes the citizens’ legitimate concerns over order and inclusive development.

In the emerging markets, where rule of law is weak and growth is uneven, disaffected individuals tend to choose order and shared prosperity over law and civil liberties. Even more crucially, one must not forget the sheer power of charisma.

Democratic politics is not the realm of algorithmic rationality, but the struggle for the affections and loyalties of voters. This is the “third way” that Leni and the new generation of liberal democrats should strive for, if they wish to remain relevant in our age of populism and ideological skepticism.

jrheydarian@gmail.com

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/114492/leni-third-way#ixzz5OZbqxB16

There is no “Third Way.” Scientific data shows that the best way is a working, effective democracy. Countries built on this political system post the best economic performance worldwide, and moreover, protect and uphold human rights. Genuinely democratic systems result in superior quality of life. Making this system work requires a population that in the first place enjoys basic minimum economic well-being and that has also internalized liberal democratic values and principles.

The so-called “Third Way” that Heydarian describes, governance under a charismatic democratic leader, arises in the context of a working, effective democracy.

Countries that succeed based on hybrid systems, like Singapore, are practically nonexistent. 

Authoritarian regimes as a rule are oppressive. More likely than not, they maintain in underdeveloped countries, contributing in major ways to underdevelopment.

***

“Politics is a realm in which iniquity is multiplied many times over when the masses like herds of animals incited by morally corrupt leaders participate in systemic evil on a massive scale.”

“Populism is an incomplete and degenerate form of democracy.”

“Under a tyranny the law is misused as an instrument of injustice, persecution, repression, and oppression.”

“Genuine democracy, which subsists in the democratic values and principles internalized by the people, is subverted when criminal leaders controvert the laws embodying the people’s deepest aspirations for freedom from tyranny.”

“Democracy is a work in progress, fascism a work in regress.”

Link: https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/07/politics.html