Now, I did notice that the head of Freedom House was the ex-head of the CIA. Wasn’t it his job, in some sense, to make sure that any democratisation around the world didn’t succeed so well that it threatened to displace the US ?
I wasn’t aware that South America was reversing gains, i was under the impression that it gets more successful but I don’t know much about it and South America doesn’t really get the headlines here.
Did you mean this ?
I’m reading through this freedom House piece but it just looks partisan, with a lot of airbrushing.
For instance it says
…which is one view of things…
Leaked diplomatic cable from 2006 says
…which is a different take on things.
Then on internet freedom it says
Out of all the countries curtailing freedom of the internet I doubt if it’s coincidence that they write about the one harboring Assange.
The world freedom map is handy, though. And it says that the number of free countries has increased since 1984 but has stopped increasing - which I think just reflects the exiting of the Soviet Union.
…so Zizek’s pessimism would be right on Russia, but China is loosening up according to Freedom House - which goes against his thesis somewhat.
But those dark parts of the map represent areas in which free markets and Western democracy will have to penetrate in order to bring about global freedom, yes ?
And suddenly, world business will be much harder to conduct because we all have to learn Mandarin
No, Zizek’s pessimism regarding Russia is not justified. Russia will probably become more authoritarian after Putin shuffled off this mortal coil, but there’s a decent chance it turns to the authoritarian left (I.e. the Communists) rather than the authoritarian right. I’m sure Zizek (and I would agree with him) would Favour that outcome.
There are a lot of Chinese with attitudes towards Taiwan that I consider hostile. However, they developed these ideas in a nation, the PRC, where the idea of Taiwan being its own country is censored. With freedom of speech, the press, and the Internet, there still would be people who wanted to conquer Taiwan. But, with friends of Taiwan allowed to make its case, I’d expect some militaristic opinions to moderate.
Also, a democratic mainland government wouldn’t need me to suggest starting up a Chinese Commonwealth of Nations modeled on the British Commonwealth – that is, a free association (free to join, free to withdraw) of sovereign states dedicated to democracy and human rights. I think Taiwan would join that, and this should lessen pressure from the rash jingoists you mention.
He regards Stalinism as an ethical disaster. I don’t know how far he has any regard for authoritarianism, but I don’t think he’s a gulags type of guy - seeing as he was a dissident constantly aggravating his government, and would probably have been encamped if Yugoslavia was more authoritarian. I think you’re looking at a stereotype.
What makes you think that Russia would go left ? I know there is still some communist party support but it’s not a majority i think.
The communists are the second largest party (after Putin’s) with about 20% of the vote, the nationalists and liberals each come in with 10-15%. There is (barely) majority support for a centrally planned economy, though, and plurality support for a ‘Soviet style’ political system. As mentioned above, a lot of these people who sympathize with communism apparently end up voting for Putin, for reasons that are unclear. I’d guess partly personal charisma, partly nationalism, partly because things got better under his watch, and most importantly because even if they dislike Putin they prefer him to the liberals (and I’d guess that liberals dislike Putin but prefer him to the communists).
Putin probably has a lock on the presidency for a long time, but he won’t live forever. I think the KPRF has a decent shot at power after he dies, because they have a considerable amount of support (certainly more than the liberals), and because they have a coherent ideology and model of society. (So do the liberals, but their model is very unpopular).
As for Zizek regarding Stalin as an ethical disaster, well yes, so did every post-1956 Soviet leader at least to some degree. That didn’t make them liberal democrats.
“Left” and “right” may be irrelevant in discussing latter day communists. Remember that the current Chinese rulers still call themselves communists, but Karl Marx no longer enters into their decision making process. Similarly, a new caudillo ruling over Russia might call himself a communist, but that doesn’t mean Marxist ideology would carry much weight with him.
What I’m saying is, “democracy” doesn’t automatically lead to a liberal state. In much of the Middle East, “the people” WANT an authoritarian Islamic state. Many ordinary Russians WANT rule by an autocratic strongman. Many ordinary Chinese would support a rabidly nationalistic, aggressive military leadership.
Not everybody wants to live in a Swedish-style social democratic state. Don’t assume that every nation with fair, open elections would elect liberal democrats.