Rethinking Democracy for Egypt and for the World
ONO Goro / Professor Emeritus, Saitama University
February 10, 2011
Mass protests against autocracy in Tunisia have spilled over to Egypt, where its people took to the streets calling for an end to President Hosni Mubarak's autocratic rule. These mass demonstrations have laid bare the reality that many pro-Western countries including Arab nations remain under political systems that are a far cry from the Western ideal of democracy. At the same time, we know from the Iraqi experience that the collapse of an autocratic regime, in the absence of an alternative power, leaves a power vacuum that destabilizes the entire region.
This has become a serious dilemma for the West – the United States and European countries - that have habitually called for reform in the areas of democracy and human rights in countries like China. They must surely maintain their role as the standard-bearers of democracy. Then again, the collapse of a pro-western country may result in regional instability and, what is feared most, become a breeding ground for terrorism and give rise to political extremism. That would be even more unbearable.
However, this kind of dilemma is not limited to a single country nor to its surrounding region. Take nuclear weapons for example. The United States, while acting as the standard-bearer for a world without nuclear weapons, possesses a massive nuclear arsenal and, furthermore, acts indulgently towards pro-American nuclear weapon states.
Rather, the root of this problem lies much deeper. The truth is that until now, world order had been maintained under U.S. hegemony - or autocracy, depending on how you look at it. And this was by no means a system of democratic management among equals. However, as was the case with the above-mentioned autocracies, the system was fine from the standpoint of the Western countries themselves, as well as pro-Western countries like Japan, which gave the system tacit approval.
Neither is this problem limited to political systems. The same double-standards can be found in the economic system.
For example, the developed countries are advocating free competition under a market economy while seeking to protect intellectual property rights in a way that gives them the upper hand. If "maintaining order in the market" is the justification for protecting intellectual property, speculative investments that have become a major factor behind disorder in the financial markets should not only be restricted but banned altogether. The distinction is being drawn along opportunistic lines. And precisely for that reason, measures rolled out to deal with each crisis are merely stopgap, and constant changes must be made to the very system upon which the market rests.
Let me make one further remark. Originally, the theoretical reasoning behind the precedence of "free trade" and "open markets" was limited to the trade of goods based on comparative advantages. The theory has no universality if one were to include liberalization of trade in factors of production that serve as the very basis of comparative advantages. Liberalization of trade was expanded to encompass liberalization of capital solely as an economic stimulus policy for developed countries that had lost their competitive edge in the market for goods, and this was forced on the less developed countries.
Simply stated, even the principles of "democracy" and "market economy" championed by developed countries in the West have become mere tools for pursuing national interests. Even so, order had been maintained and dissatisfaction did not come to the surface in the past, because the hegemonic power or the key currency country acted beyond its narrow national interests at times to maintain world order.
Dictators of autocratic states are somewhat similar, in the sense that many of them enjoyed enthusiastic support from the masses when they first stood up for the love of their country. However, a strongly nationalistic dictator will sooner or later give in to self-interest and self-enrichment, and lose popular support. Meanwhile, awakened by the coming of the Internet society, the masses begin to mobilize. Motivated by their hope for change, the general public in newly emerging and developing countries can no longer be suppressed by force.
And the same phenomenon is occurring on a global scale. Why? Because former hegemons are no longer in a position to look after the interests of the entire world and are focused on protecting their own interests instead. Furthermore, newly emerging and developing countries have been awakened by globalization and have stopped accommodating the autocratic global management system of the past led by Western countries.
If we follow through with this logic, the course of action for developed countries becomes clear, however paradoxical it may sound. If they want stability, developed countries should stop being preoccupied by their own short-term, micro-level national interests. They should practice what they preach by striving for a higher state of stability by seeking democratic management for the entire world from a long-term, overall perspective. They should unite to create a truly democratic system and a genuine market economy. I believe this global mission should be taken up by none other than Japan, a non-Western country that is highly familiar with the shortcomings of the current system.
The writer is Professor Emeritus at Saitama University.
This has become a serious dilemma for the West – the United States and European countries - that have habitually called for reform in the areas of democracy and human rights in countries like China. They must surely maintain their role as the standard-bearers of democracy. Then again, the collapse of a pro-western country may result in regional instability and, what is feared most, become a breeding ground for terrorism and give rise to political extremism. That would be even more unbearable.
However, this kind of dilemma is not limited to a single country nor to its surrounding region. Take nuclear weapons for example. The United States, while acting as the standard-bearer for a world without nuclear weapons, possesses a massive nuclear arsenal and, furthermore, acts indulgently towards pro-American nuclear weapon states.
Rather, the root of this problem lies much deeper. The truth is that until now, world order had been maintained under U.S. hegemony - or autocracy, depending on how you look at it. And this was by no means a system of democratic management among equals. However, as was the case with the above-mentioned autocracies, the system was fine from the standpoint of the Western countries themselves, as well as pro-Western countries like Japan, which gave the system tacit approval.
Neither is this problem limited to political systems. The same double-standards can be found in the economic system.
For example, the developed countries are advocating free competition under a market economy while seeking to protect intellectual property rights in a way that gives them the upper hand. If "maintaining order in the market" is the justification for protecting intellectual property, speculative investments that have become a major factor behind disorder in the financial markets should not only be restricted but banned altogether. The distinction is being drawn along opportunistic lines. And precisely for that reason, measures rolled out to deal with each crisis are merely stopgap, and constant changes must be made to the very system upon which the market rests.
Let me make one further remark. Originally, the theoretical reasoning behind the precedence of "free trade" and "open markets" was limited to the trade of goods based on comparative advantages. The theory has no universality if one were to include liberalization of trade in factors of production that serve as the very basis of comparative advantages. Liberalization of trade was expanded to encompass liberalization of capital solely as an economic stimulus policy for developed countries that had lost their competitive edge in the market for goods, and this was forced on the less developed countries.
Simply stated, even the principles of "democracy" and "market economy" championed by developed countries in the West have become mere tools for pursuing national interests. Even so, order had been maintained and dissatisfaction did not come to the surface in the past, because the hegemonic power or the key currency country acted beyond its narrow national interests at times to maintain world order.
Dictators of autocratic states are somewhat similar, in the sense that many of them enjoyed enthusiastic support from the masses when they first stood up for the love of their country. However, a strongly nationalistic dictator will sooner or later give in to self-interest and self-enrichment, and lose popular support. Meanwhile, awakened by the coming of the Internet society, the masses begin to mobilize. Motivated by their hope for change, the general public in newly emerging and developing countries can no longer be suppressed by force.
And the same phenomenon is occurring on a global scale. Why? Because former hegemons are no longer in a position to look after the interests of the entire world and are focused on protecting their own interests instead. Furthermore, newly emerging and developing countries have been awakened by globalization and have stopped accommodating the autocratic global management system of the past led by Western countries.
If we follow through with this logic, the course of action for developed countries becomes clear, however paradoxical it may sound. If they want stability, developed countries should stop being preoccupied by their own short-term, micro-level national interests. They should practice what they preach by striving for a higher state of stability by seeking democratic management for the entire world from a long-term, overall perspective. They should unite to create a truly democratic system and a genuine market economy. I believe this global mission should be taken up by none other than Japan, a non-Western country that is highly familiar with the shortcomings of the current system.
The writer is Professor Emeritus at Saitama University.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
民主主義再考 － エジプトから世界へ
小野五郎 / 埼玉大学名誉教授
2011年 2月 10日
チュニジアに続くエジプトのムバラク強権政治打倒を目指す大規模なデモの発生は、アラブをはじめ親欧米諸国の多くがいまだ欧米の掲げる民主主義から遠く離れた体制下にあるという実態を浮き彫りにした。また、そうした強権体制の崩壊は、承継すべき勢力が存在しないことから一挙に地域情勢を不安定にするということもイラクの経験によって明らかにされている。
このため、平素中国等に対して「民主化」「人権」面での改革を求めてきた欧米諸国は、今深刻なジレンマに落ち込んでいると言える。なぜなら、建前としての「民主主義」の旗は降ろせないが、さりとて親欧米政権の崩壊も地域情勢を不安定化させ、さらには彼等が最も恐れるテロの温床となり過激派を台頭させることはもっと耐えがたいからである。
とはいえ、この種のジレンマは決して今回のような個々の国ないしその周辺地域に限るべき話ではない。例えば核兵器一つ取ってみても、米国は一方で「核廃絶」を叫びながら他方で自ら大量の核兵器を保有し、かつ、親米的な核保有国に対しては甘い態度を取っているところではないか。
というより、実はこの問題の根はもっと深いところにある。
すなわち、これまで世界は米国による一国覇権体制下、見方によってはその強権によって秩序が維持されてきたのであり、個々の国々が対等な立場での民主的運営からは程遠かった。ただ、欧米自身ないし日本のような親欧米的立場からは、上の強権国家同様、それで良かったし、また、それを黙認せざるをえなかったのだ。
ところで、この問題は何も政治体制問題に止まるものではない。経済体制においても全く同様なダブルスタンダードが見られる。
例えば「市場経済下における自由競争」を叫ぶ一方で、先進国に有利な形での「知的財産権保護」が強く叫ばれるなどがそれである。なお、知財保護の根拠として「市場秩序維持のために必要だ」と言うのであれば、金融市場において秩序撹乱要因となっている投機については規制するどころか禁止してしかるべきではないか。その辺が、あまりに御都合主義になりすぎているからこそ、問題が生ずる都度取られる対策も対症療法的となり、市場の前提たる制度そのものが目まぐるしく変化してしまうことになるのだ。付言すれば、元々理論的に「自由取引」「市場開放」が優位だとされる根拠は、あくまで比較優位に基づく財の交易のみに言えるのであって、比較優位そのものの根源たる生産要素の交易自由化まで含めた普遍性はない。それを貿易自由化→資本自由化と拡大したのは、一に財市場で競争力を失った往時の先進国が自国経済振興策として後発国に強要したことに端を発するにすぎない。
端的に言えば、欧米先進国が主張する「民主主義」にしても「市場経済」にしても、今やその謳う理念そのものとは異なる国益追求のためのツールに成り下がっているということだ。それでも、かつては覇権国なり機軸通貨国は、時に一国の利害を超えて世界秩序維持のために動いていたから、それなりに世界秩序は維持され不満も顕在化しなかったのである。
その点は、強権国家の独裁者にしても、その多くが愛国心から立ち上がった当初は国民大多数の熱烈な支持を得ていたという意味において共通する。そんな愛国心に富んだ独裁者もいつか私利私欲に動くようになり、やがて人心は離れていく。そしてネット社会の到来とともに目覚めた大衆が動き出す。彼ら変化を期待する新興国・後発国の一般大衆は、もはや強権的に押さえ込むことなどできない存在になった。
それと同じことが世界大でも起こっている。すなわち、すでに往時の覇権国も世界全体の利益を図るだけの余裕がなくなり、自国のことしか考えられなくなった。それに加えて、グローバリゼーションによって目覚めた新興国・後発国は、もはや過去の欧米主導の強権的な世界運営を許さなくなった。
そう考えてくると、逆説的ではあるが、先進諸国が安定を望むのであれば、次のレベルの定常状態に向け、個々に短期的・ミクロ的な国益に捉われるのは止め、より長期的・俯瞰的な見地から世界全体に関しても建前どおりの民主的な運営に努め、一致して真の「民主体制」「市場経済」構築を目指すべきだということになる。そこにおいて、一応の欧米型「民主主義」「市場経済」体制を構築し、非欧米国として自身その欠点も熟知している日本が世界史的使命を負うべきだと認識するものである。
（筆者は埼玉大学名誉教授）
このため、平素中国等に対して「民主化」「人権」面での改革を求めてきた欧米諸国は、今深刻なジレンマに落ち込んでいると言える。なぜなら、建前としての「民主主義」の旗は降ろせないが、さりとて親欧米政権の崩壊も地域情勢を不安定化させ、さらには彼等が最も恐れるテロの温床となり過激派を台頭させることはもっと耐えがたいからである。
とはいえ、この種のジレンマは決して今回のような個々の国ないしその周辺地域に限るべき話ではない。例えば核兵器一つ取ってみても、米国は一方で「核廃絶」を叫びながら他方で自ら大量の核兵器を保有し、かつ、親米的な核保有国に対しては甘い態度を取っているところではないか。
というより、実はこの問題の根はもっと深いところにある。
すなわち、これまで世界は米国による一国覇権体制下、見方によってはその強権によって秩序が維持されてきたのであり、個々の国々が対等な立場での民主的運営からは程遠かった。ただ、欧米自身ないし日本のような親欧米的立場からは、上の強権国家同様、それで良かったし、また、それを黙認せざるをえなかったのだ。
ところで、この問題は何も政治体制問題に止まるものではない。経済体制においても全く同様なダブルスタンダードが見られる。
例えば「市場経済下における自由競争」を叫ぶ一方で、先進国に有利な形での「知的財産権保護」が強く叫ばれるなどがそれである。なお、知財保護の根拠として「市場秩序維持のために必要だ」と言うのであれば、金融市場において秩序撹乱要因となっている投機については規制するどころか禁止してしかるべきではないか。その辺が、あまりに御都合主義になりすぎているからこそ、問題が生ずる都度取られる対策も対症療法的となり、市場の前提たる制度そのものが目まぐるしく変化してしまうことになるのだ。付言すれば、元々理論的に「自由取引」「市場開放」が優位だとされる根拠は、あくまで比較優位に基づく財の交易のみに言えるのであって、比較優位そのものの根源たる生産要素の交易自由化まで含めた普遍性はない。それを貿易自由化→資本自由化と拡大したのは、一に財市場で競争力を失った往時の先進国が自国経済振興策として後発国に強要したことに端を発するにすぎない。
端的に言えば、欧米先進国が主張する「民主主義」にしても「市場経済」にしても、今やその謳う理念そのものとは異なる国益追求のためのツールに成り下がっているということだ。それでも、かつては覇権国なり機軸通貨国は、時に一国の利害を超えて世界秩序維持のために動いていたから、それなりに世界秩序は維持され不満も顕在化しなかったのである。
その点は、強権国家の独裁者にしても、その多くが愛国心から立ち上がった当初は国民大多数の熱烈な支持を得ていたという意味において共通する。そんな愛国心に富んだ独裁者もいつか私利私欲に動くようになり、やがて人心は離れていく。そしてネット社会の到来とともに目覚めた大衆が動き出す。彼ら変化を期待する新興国・後発国の一般大衆は、もはや強権的に押さえ込むことなどできない存在になった。
それと同じことが世界大でも起こっている。すなわち、すでに往時の覇権国も世界全体の利益を図るだけの余裕がなくなり、自国のことしか考えられなくなった。それに加えて、グローバリゼーションによって目覚めた新興国・後発国は、もはや過去の欧米主導の強権的な世界運営を許さなくなった。
そう考えてくると、逆説的ではあるが、先進諸国が安定を望むのであれば、次のレベルの定常状態に向け、個々に短期的・ミクロ的な国益に捉われるのは止め、より長期的・俯瞰的な見地から世界全体に関しても建前どおりの民主的な運営に努め、一致して真の「民主体制」「市場経済」構築を目指すべきだということになる。そこにおいて、一応の欧米型「民主主義」「市場経済」体制を構築し、非欧米国として自身その欠点も熟知している日本が世界史的使命を負うべきだと認識するものである。
（筆者は埼玉大学名誉教授）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟