Way to Go!

Get Rid of Democracy: More Authoritarian Governments Needed

The Copenhagen UN Climate Summit was a failure--acknowledged to be such by everyone but the most extreme spinmeisters. This has resulted in a lot of wound-licking, rethinking, recalibrating, and re-conspiring. What to do next? Where do our erstwhile planet saviours go from here?

One interesting discussion thread has been a critical condemnation of democracy which is being blamed for an intrinsic inability to deal with the threats facing mankind. This is an development--ironic to the Christian--but almost inevitable in the West. Post-Enlightenment Unbelief has sought to ground everything upon the ultimacy of human reason, and in particular reason as grounded in the scientific method and informed by the certain and infallible knowledge which rationalistic science is believed to produce.

Western democratic political ideology has itself been grounded in this world-view. The reasoning individual is the ultimate individual. Rationalistic science is so powerful, so transcendently truth-giving that a reasoning individual can discover truth just as effectively, if not more effectively, than governments. The ideological foundations for modern Western democracies rest upon millions of supposedly rational, scientifically informed, and therefore enlightened individuals.

But, and here is the paradox, in every truth system or philosophical system some truths are necessarily more fundamental than others. Some principles are axiomatic; some knowledge is so basic that it relegates other principles and knowledge down a pecking order (subjugated to a realm of opinion, beliefs, desires, wishes). It is inevitable that societies grounded upon rationalistic science will end up making some beliefs more fundamental than others. When that happens, the holders or discoverers or protectors of this more fundamental knowledge will assert themselves as the true philosopher kings who alone are wise enough to rule society.

When that point is reached, democracy as a political ideology will be passed its use-by-date. It is no accident that those who espouse democratic ideals most fervently also tend to see themselves as elites, as superior, as natural leaders. The input of the people is welcomed, as long as the people agree with us. If not, we--the enlightened ones--will tell the masses what they really ought to be doing and thinking. Being part of an elite means that one really does know what is best for ordinary men and women.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that global warming "scientists" and their political advocates have begun concluding, in the light of the failure of Copenhagen, that democracy is now part of the problem. Nico Stehr (Karl Mannheim Professor of Cultural Studies, Zeppelin University, Germany )and Hans von Storch (Professor of Meteorology, University of Hamburg, Germany) recently wrote an article in Der Spiegel tracing this latest development in the saga. The argument, as they describe it, runs like this:

Democracy, an emerging argument holds, is an inappropriate and ineffective political system to meet the challenges of the consequences of climate change in politics and society, particularly in the area of necessary emission reductions. Democratically organized societies are too cumbersome to avoid climate change; they act neither timely nor are they responsive in the necessary comprehensive manner. The "big decisions" to be taken need a strong state. The endless debate should end. We have to act -- that is the most important message. And that is why democracy in the eyes of these observers becomes an inconvenient democracy.

In another historical context, decades ago, Friedrich Hayek pointed to the paradoxical development that follows scientific advances; it tends to strengthen that view that we should “aim at more deliberate and comprehensive control of all human activities”. Hayek pessimistically adds “It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom”.

Copenhagen shows not the failure of climate "science" but the inability of democracies to cope with the apocalyptic end of the planet. Since climate science provides ostensibly infallible and certain knowledge, the lesser views, opinions, beliefs, and knowledge of millions of subjects and citizens must be discarded; democracy itself has become part of the problem. Saving the planet is more important than human freedom.

Note well: you can only get to this point if your starting assumption is that scientific rationality is infallible and absolute. But, since Western democracies are built upon that assumption, they will find it rather hard to demur when "science" concludes that democracies are problematic and have to done away with.