In accordance with the work of Fukuyama, our egalitarian herd morality is becoming redundant and teleological apocalyptic. It should be easier for anyone to argue, at this point in history, that an organic growth of Democracy is no longer possible as opposed to the more recent moral justification of exporting Democracy to countries that are not value-laden with Western liberalism. There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views. These preconditions include things like literacy, educational institutions, a thriving middle class, urbanization, low birth rates, reliable bureaucratic institutions and other ideals of what exists in the most hegemonic Democracies to date; the ideals which pre-exist within successful Democratic nations in principle. These socio-economic preconditions can develop in many ways, but the most notable examples are through i) Lee Kuan Yew hypothesis or ii) corporate globalizing infrastructure.
The first methodological condition for creating socio-economic preconditions for a functioning Democratic system is not at all favourable in my opinion. Through the affects of disciplined neo-authoritarianism, countries like Singapore, post reform China, Pakistan (1993), South Korea and Turkey, experience rapid phases of economic growth for most, if not the entirety of the population. The main problem the Lee hypothesis encounters is ironically a moral problem. Although (in the rare cases of benign authoritarian leadership creating this condition) these countries do experience some sort of economic growth spurt, there is no systematic approach to dealing with sudden moral changes in an absolutist governance. This can result in seriously negative repercussions of surprisingly heinous decisions (e.g. Fujimori, Pinochet) which affect the general population of that country with a morally personal standard. To developed Western nations, these random economic progressions and moral dilemmas are laughable. The higher development of Democratic legislations result in complex power struggles between corporations (large privatized economies), lawmaking officials and politicians.
The next point I would like to make is more favourable than the former because it will indeed concur with most who can understand it. A globalized materialism encourages corporate monopolies to become more relevant than politics in so far as not only does it more effectively provide those preconditions suitable for an organic Democracy, but provides us with our basic material needs and wants with a modern response of immediacy, satisfaction and occupation. As the UN becomes more and more like a supranational relief agency, corporate monopolies continue to rule our pampered lives with globalized investments. Privatized public wealth is becoming both more sizable but also less concentrated. Corporations will soon resemble a technologically supreme version of Hellenistic oligarchies which regulate themselves. As Westerners become immersed in a materialistic lifestyle of immediate satisfaction and occupational redundancy, Democratic governance becomes more limited in creating regulations which properly serves public interests as I’m sure the corporate demands naturally work this out for themselves to cater to consumers. The invisible hand is preparing to flick the pesky bureaucracies of Western Democracy ff the shoulders of the overburdened complexities of the ignorant masses to create a hybrid ruling of futuristic monopoly.
The death of democracy will be due to corporate globalization and internal decay from Democracy’s own egalitarian masses. Of course this statement is up for debate, as I will provide a brief definition of what the basic elements of Democracy are. I will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of living with corporate globalization. I would also love to discuss any diverging perspectives unless they are unsupported claims for armageddon. The basic elements a Democracy (not its inhabitants) should guarantee is voting and fair election, protections of rights and liberties, respect for legal entitlements, free discussion and uncensored distribution of news. These are only basic aspects which are highly transfigured into the mixed economies and cultural backgrounds which I am sure we all could argue about. This thread is about what Democracy will be in the near future, not what it is now. Although it is relevant to discuss these elements to understand your perspective of Democracy in the future, that discussion should be denoted as secondary to the speculations for the future of Democracy, not only focusing on the incredible advantages or ideological fallacies of the current state of Democracy.
The advantages of living with corporate globalization reside in three main realities. The first is the reality of egalitarian multiculturalism. Ideological freedom will produce a higher social standard of public determination, cooperation and progression towards a communal way of living. People will be more easily satisfied and more aware of what is going on. The second reality is the investments for clean energy and new, quasi-futuristic, technology; resembling a space age. It may be exhilarating as it will also be terrifying (as it always has been) to witness the new developments in publicly accessible technologies. The third reality is progressive research in tangibly beneficial fields - most importantly, medical research. The technological advances of medical research, public accessibility and daily occupation will be incredibly active and profitable. Making luxuries into commonalities, the world will advance into a space age.
The disadvantages of living with corporate globalization will can be broken down into three vague concepts. The first is moral, the second economic,the third is intellectual. The moral aspects of daily life will become more confusing in so far as it makes less sense not to follow a herd morality for the sake of material benefits and hierarchical social structures which are primitively rewarding. As a globalized culture abides to the consumerism of corporate globalization, ancient conflicts will either be resolved for the sake of material benefits with a personally beneficial lifestyle of seemingly awesome wealth, or these conflicts will be completely excluded from the meting pot of corporate investment. The second economic problem has to do with personalized wealth and oligarchical infrastructure of possibly oppressive corporate regimes. The masses will be manufactured to the point of robotic plasticity of obeying every command, to buy every new toy, to love the whole and the product. The third disadvantage of corporate globalization is awakening the intellect. We will have to gradually realize our stupidity on a large scale. We will be able to affirm that ‘we know we know nothing’ in order to make the next step in intellectual conscientiousness. We will have this ability because will all be couch potatoes with little to no meaning in our lives other than living for material standards for the masses.
There are other speculations I have regarding the future of Democratic societies and Democracies themselves. The first is essentially Marxist. How will there be any other forms of Historiography which s not fundamentally Marxist? The other speculation is that of the age and population gap. What will be the consequences of having a large population die off (baby boomers) and a large population grow up (generation y and millennials) both economically and ideologically? The final speculation has to do with the death of teleology. This does not necessarily imply nihilism, or religious decay worldwide, but what it does necessarily imply is the common consensus of giving up on that familiar transcendence to some sort of ‘final’ or ‘end’ stage of life. For example, Marx believed this finality was communism, Hegel had some ideas of his own on this teleological finality too. But what will be the consequences of this realization mean for the whole of humanity? How will progression of technology, science, morality and systematic governance coincide?
This entire post is problematic and I encourage anyone and everyone to prove me wrong or elaborate upon my ideas in respectful, philosophical matter. All the ideas I have posted here are fragments of what I really want to discuss in this thread. The tip of the iceberg is better than no iceberg at all, so let’s discuss. I know there are related threads on ILP (e.g. what will replace capitalism), but I find it fascinating to explore the political and socio-economic implications of corporate globalization. The very last point I would like to make regarding the title of this article is the impossibility of retaining a functioning Democratic system. There are two perspectives of country-democracy relationships. One is to have country be fit for Democracy, and the other most modern perspective, developed in the twentieth century, is to have country become fit because of Democracy. The latter is unattainable and essentially arrogant; only upheld by moral justifications, rarely anyhing instrumental results with this approach (fuck you Reagan, Bush, UN and NSA). The former is favourable. Having a country deemed fit for democracy has resulted in some of the most successful historical accounts of a functioning Democracy. However, modernity will obstruct the possibilities of having such prosperous preconditions arise because the latter is too heavily relied upon and corporate globalization is proving to be the most powerful source of progressive, systematic relief of past political obligations which had negative repercussions on their peoples. Once corporations hold socio-economic and political power, I doubt they will give it up for creating a functioning Democratic system in those countries for which they substantiated the preconditions to make a country deemed fit for Democracy. I will enjoy debating the multitude of topics expressed in this short post. The Death of Democracy is long process, but nonetheless, inevitable.