http://www.asyura2.com/11/senkyo122/msg/407.html
| Tweet |
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/olympass/52550210.html
民主主義、独裁体制、市場
非常に考えさせられるコラムである。危機に瀕しているのは先進国、そして民主主義と市場を重視してきた国であり、こうしたなか自信をもっているのは、いまや独裁体制(非民主儀）の国である。民主主義が政治システムとして機能するどころかマヒ状態をもたらし、そしてそこに「市場」がつけこむ − そう市場原理主義者が神のように敬ってきた市場が、である。かつてシュムペーターは『資本主義、社会主義、民主主義』という著作を書いた。この３つのタームを思い出させる。市場はいくらでもEUを崩壊・混乱の方向にもっていくことができる。「よし、イタリアを攻めてやれ。そしてぼろもうけをしてやれ」的な投機家が市場で暗躍し、国債イールドは記録的な高さになり、政府は国際を市場で起債することが不可能となる。そこでベイルアウトを要請し、その代わりに超緊縮財政を要求される。市場と国民、金融と市場・・・こうした問題についての社会哲学的考察がいまほど必要とされているときはないのではないだろうか。
＊＊＊
The markets distrust democracy. Just ask the masters of Beijing and Moscow
Why is the democratic world faring so much worse in this crisis than its authoritarian rivals? It's the austerity, stupid
Jonathan Freedland
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 November 2011 22.00 GMT NYT
How will historians remember 2011, the year which, according to the satirists at the Onion, has already used up the next decade's entire supply of news? Some wonder if the Arab revolutions put 2011 on a par with 1917, when the Ottoman Empire broke up. Perhaps it will stand alongside the great European upheavals of 1848 or 1989. Or there might be a mixed story to tell, with 2011 remembered as the year when democracy was demanded in one part of the world just as it was exposed as paralysed and impotent in the face of economic crisis almost everywhere else.
Democracy's humbling has been most dramatically visible in Greece and Italy, where elected leaders have been pushed aside in favour of technocrats and fixers, elevated without so much as shaking a single voter's hand. Their mission will include the surrender of much economic sovereignty, putting those decisions further out of the reach of their own citizens. What Greeks and Italians endure today, other eurozone nations might well face tomorrow as they are told to make similar sacrifices of autonomy to save their economic skin.
Whether in Europe or beyond, democratic leaders have seemed powerless to beat back the engulfing global crisis, the failure of the G20 at Cannes exposing their weakness for all to see. And yet, according to one who was there, the leaders of the world's authoritarian states – China, Russia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia – had a spring in their step in Cannes, confident that they could face down whatever the economic meltdown threw at them.
Why is the democratic world faring so much worse than its non-democratic rivals in the current storm? Start with austerity. It may not be the best solution for a worldwide crisis of anaemic growth and falling demand – indeed it is surely making the problem worse – but it is what the markets demand in return for manageably low rates of interest on the money they lend to governments. That it is these men, not those we elect, who are all-powerful is not new: Bill Clinton discovered as much nearly two decades ago when, in a spitting rage, he shot back at advisers who warned he had to trim his economic plans: "You mean to tell me that the success of my program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of fucking bond traders?"
Given that it is the markets who call the tune, the question then becomes one's ability to dance to it most nimbly – and in that endeavour democracy is an impediment. Leaders who have to face the voters simply cannot impose austerity on an unwilling population without paying a price, whether in riots on the streets of Athens, protests in Madrid or Occupy camps in London and New York. In the immediate postwar era, people might have been readier to endure rationing and hardship in, say, Britain because there was a sharper sense of collective identity and solidarity, a belief that their sacrifice was the consequence of a worthy cause and that good times would come eventually. But now society is less cohesive: austerity is seen as the result not of defeating foreign tyranny in a just war but of bankers' reckless greed; and few believe, as they once did, that they are guaranteed to be better off than their parents.
None of these headaches press the same way on the masters of Beijing or Moscow. "Vladimir Putin is the most powerful human being in the world," says the political scientist and head of the Eurasia Group, Ian Bremmer. "He can change his country on a dime" – unrestrained by the rule of law or by any meaningful democratic checks.
Similarly China's rulers can switch national budgetary priorities in a heartbeat, spending trillions on stimulus with a stroke of a pen. If China's banks show the same unwillingness to lend as they have in Europe or the US then the politburo in Beijing simply issues an order for them to do so. No wonder that, contemplating the paralysed decision-making of Washington DC, the New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has fantasised about America becoming "China for a day". For democracies, saddled with the creaking machinery of checks and balances, slow, incremental change is possible – but firefighting in a crisis is much harder.
ーーーーーー
民主主義か独裁かというと銀河英雄伝説みたいになるけど、民主主義より独裁の方が上手く行っているのなら、民主主義は民度が低いということになる。
それとも民主主義の仮面を被った貴族政治が行われているのか。
どうも現在は、この二つの要素がミックスしている気がする。
この記事を読んだ人はこんな記事も読んでいます（表示まで20秒程度時間がかかります。）
▲このページのＴＯＰへ ★阿修羅♪ > 政治・選挙・ＮＨＫ122掲示板
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。すべてのページの引用、転載、リンクを許可します。確認メールは不要です。引用元リンクを表示してください。
