What is democracy?

The world over, there are different ways of viewing, for want of a better expression, "people power". In some countries, this takes the form of a revolution every ten or so years, installing another dictator. In others, it is the complete opposite, where governments cannot so much as change the VAT rate without a referendum. Extremes in the crazy systems governing this planet. What is clear though is that, with a couple of seriously wacky exceptions, in all countries of the world, the system is bigger than any individual.

What, though, is the most bizarre thing, is the sheer number of organisations, corporations, state-owned bodies and self-governing regions that bypass any form of public scrutiny. There's the Bilderberg group, the City of London Corporation, OPEC, any number of multi-billion-dollar company, media outlet or bank to name but a few. These organisations generally accept the widely-held opinion that politicians in democracies (at least those who make it) are malleable, popularity-hungry, attention-seeking, shallow petty criminals, loan sharks and dangerously crooked property owners in need of a place to legitimise, consolidate and widen their shady dealings through networking and rubbing shoulders with other like-minded individuals. A kind of LinkedIn for criminals who want to do everything officially.

These organisations also know that there are those who genuinely come into politics wishing to change the world. Visionaries, fresh-minded academics, talented individuals with imagination and a steely eye on the goals they wish to achieve. Of course, when they come up against the might of the machine, they also find their dreams dashed, their hopes halved and their ambitions annulled, either through being told that the thought is a valiant one but totally impractical, or by being ridiculed, scandalised or hounded out of office by the more sinister factions of politics, and their media buddies. This of course depends on how close to the bone the visionary entrant comes when airing his or her new ideas.

So the large firms single out the right politicians for their dirty work: they give them special deals, assure them of seats on their boards of directors and pushing their candidacies for posts where they can be of use to them after their political careers are over. This is why nothing truly pleasing to the people ever gets done; because it's not in anyone's interest. It's not in the politicians' interests, because they would be putting themselves out of use; it's not in the corporations' interests because they'd not have anyone to represent their shady interests at international level, and it's not in the people's interests because it would make us all jumpy, to think that everything was going so swimmingly well. We'd think there was a catch and start petty paranoid skirmishes with traditional foes.

Leaders in the democratic world these days are so uninspirational, so faceless, so full of themselves, that we cannot really blame the Chinese for viewing democracy with suspicion, when they see how the Greeks behaved. How can you respect a politician who, in order to secure another term in power, promises to reduce taxes, or the retirement age by a year, or unemployment by hiring another few thousand people to do meaningless tasks that could be handled by half a dozen job students? How can you respect a politician who fakes his own country's economic situation in order to join a currency union his country has no hope of keeping up with?
I'll tell you how.

Let's take each country as being a person, and the Eurozone a little like marriage. So before the Eurozone was set up, when each country was in the singles market, so to say, they put on their best outfits for summits and kept the smiles going long into the evening, a little like singles have done for decades. Once they get married, of course, the partners start noticing little niggling habits that irritate them, like too many referenda (Ireland, Denmark) or inability to save money (Ireland gain, Italy, Greece). In the end, what happens to most married people? They let themselves go. They get unfit, lazy, start putting on weight and neglecting their personal hygiene. The same has happened in the euro marriage. Now they're tied together in an eternal bond of "till death us do part" those newlyweds feel that they'll be saved by the others if things go wrong. And then the mid-life crisis sets in, where the man decides to get a Porsche convertible and go trekking in the Arctic. The woman (Germany in this case) stays at home, horrified. No wonder she (Merkel) wants to limit the manoeuvrability of the Greek economy.

Now, returning to the original question - what is democracy? For me, you can' t let the people decide everything, because we'd reintroduce hanging and expel anyone with an accent. That's unfortunately how it goes, because those with opinions, principles or views are usually a lot louder than those who just get on with their lives worry-free, and are more likely to bother to vote in any referendum, which is why David Cameron refuses to give the UK a referendum of staying in the EU. On the other hand, you can't let politicians carry on governing forever, or they get too big for their boots. They get to know the system too well. So well, in fact, they do things like rein in the national media (Italy, Hungary), reduce freedom of speech (UK, France) or change the constitution to make it harder to remove them, or to indict them for any wrogdoing during or after their terms of service (Italy again). This was not planned when democracy was conceived. It was not the main idea.

So, how has this shrinking of democratic values occurred in historically democratic countries where politicians are traditionally accept their fates every four or five years at the ballot box? In Europe, this has happened because the EU has made it necessary. On one hand, the European Council of Ministers has replaced many of the features of national government because a great deal of decisions take place at European level, and are implemented nationally under the pretext that they were actually decided by the national politicians. And on the other, because of the turbulence they knew they were about to unleash on everyone. Don't tell me that five years ago, or even ten, those politicians had no idea of the storm they were kicking up when they introduced the euro, allowing Greece, Portugal and other such ClubMed nations into the club. I cannot believe for one moment that after so many errors of judgement on the way, so many wrong moves, so many contrived agreements and forced referendum decisions in the last decade, that there is no alternative agenda. You cannot tell people "you will have democracy, but only if you vote our way". Democracy has to mean something, and it has to be binding.

On the other hand, what is it like living in a country without democracy? In a country like the People's Republic of Korea, it's probably a living nightmare. I would not wish to spend 24 hours in that country. I think the same about Myanmar and Zimbabwe. But in Belarus or pre-election Azerbaijan or Bhutan, I could imagine living, despite not having much in the way of freedom of speech. It poses the questions, "is democracy over-rated?" and "is democracy something for everyone?" When you look at China or Russia, two vast countries, are either of them capable of further democratising without keeping a firm grip on the people for fear of independence movements springing up everywhere? Would the Chinese people really know what to with full voting rights? Do they really need it? I think they are doing very well with their systems as they are now.

Let us look at something simple: if a little village in, say, Nigeria applies to the EU for funding of a bridge over a dangerous river, the European Commission will firstly send it to a committee, who will then decide whether it is viable or not. Within months, they will dispatch a surveyor, an engineer and a budget analyst to the location to draw up plans and make an offer to the Nigerians. Once this has been approved, it will go back to Brussels for ratification, and within the next budgetary outlay, funds will be made available. Months later, the bridge will be built using ethically sourced materials and properly paid skilled workers, but the whole process will take about 2 to 3 years. Then there's the Chinese. They'll just turn up in the village, ask where they'd like the bridge and get to work. The material for the bridge might not be so stable or Kosher, and the builders might be less capable, but the whole thing would take 3 months, maximum. That is the difference between an ethical democratic process and a one-party state: the bridge might take a lot shorter to build, and the shorter waiting time will mean fewer will be killed whilst the Europeans are still discussing the proposal, and there will be

So, could the slow eradication of democracy in Europe be a necessity, clandestinely being introduced to be able to compete with China and Russia in the long term? Could the lack of transparency at European level be something to do with politicians' need to hide something far more worrying from us? I doubt it. But there's still a little thought cloud in my head which does not rule it out entirely. What I think is most likely, is that the current crop of politicians is grasping at any way at all to distance themselves from the mess they made of the last 10 years.

To finish, when asking what democracy is, we cannot put a finger on it because everywhere is different. In the politically disengaged countries of western Europe, democracy has been compromised. It has shifted from parliament to talent shows, from local government to online polls and customer satisfaction surveys. Panem et Circenses is the motto of our civilisation. With the coming of the Occupy movement and the sudden unpopularity of the European Union and what it stands for, I think the day is coming where people power, in whatever form is most suited to each country, will take back control. But in the end, it's the power-hungry that corrupt the system causing an endless cycle of bad governance. That makes no difference if in Asia, Africa or Europe, dictatorships or democracies: the sharpest elbows win.

How much did it cost, Mr Putin?

So Russia has won the right to host the World Cup in 2018.

Take a look at the following press freedom rankings of the candidate countries:
The Netherlands (3)
Japan (12)
Belgium (14)
Australia (18)
The UK (19)
The USA (20)
Spain (39)
Portugal (40)
South Korea (42)
Qatar (120)
Russia (140)

Now, considering the alleged backhanders and oiled palms that took place in the bidding process, I regard it as a badge of honour that England was last in the votes. Australians should feel proud that their democracy came last in their own election for 2022.

I do not mind whoever won, but the way the day progressed frightened me - is this a sign of the future? I would prefer my country to have press freedom and my human rights respected than win the right to host a football competition in which even the goals scored might not be given because FIFA refuses to allow TV replay evidence.

I hope the UK press is galvanised into running a deeper-than-deep investigation into the dealings of that self-appointed, self-important, self-deifying group of stuffed suits.

There are three places the UK press needs to look:

1. Why did Blatter say China invented football? I knew the writing was on the wall then. After that, he gave a less-than-convincing speech on the need for the losing countries to accept the decision of FIFA. In other words, "we've been doing things behind everyone's backs and we're really worried about the reaction of the losing bidders."

2. Why did 5 members of FIFA tell David Cameron that they could be assured of their votes which then never materialised? Blatter's speech to FIFA delegates just before voting may have had something to do with that, where he told the voters to remember the recent criticism directed at their organisation when they cast their votes.

3. The last place the UK press should look is the pockets of every FIFA member, to make sure they're not getting too full.

I, for one, would welcome this media intrusion. I didn't mind the fact that England lost the voting. I never thought it would win. But the manner in which it happened suggests there was something not right in the voting process.

This is also a mirror of the intransigence which FIFA deploys in regard to their refusal to allow TV evidence to assist referees. It is a powerful hint that it is not in their interests to allow certain results to interfere in the smooth coronation of the world champions.

I have always had a dark brown suspicion that World Cup winners were not always the teams that played the best. Now I am wondering how much it costs a country not just to win the right to host, but to win the World Cup itself.

Well, why don't the larger countries get together and break away from FIFA, set up a rival code and then see who blinks first... Spain, Portugal and Italy would relish the chance to join a breakaway group with England. Then the Germans and Dutch might feel a bit lonely as the biggest European footballing countries still clinging to FIFA. And as the only two larger countries left, a little like the Scottish football league, the Celtic and Rangers of world football, Argentina and Brazil, would not take too long to switch suits either. Then the torrent would come led by France, the Czech Republic, Japan and Scotland. In the end, only Switzerland, Qatar and Russia will be left. They can set up a proper, fan-based democratic football union run on the basis of what is really good for the game.

It'll never happen though. Too many threats from FIFA will see to that.

Now let's get back to playing (mainly) honest sports like cricket, golf and rugby.

The world in 2050 - part III, the scenarios

So, with the observations of the previous two articles in mind, how can the world look in 40 years?

If you're in the Western hemisphere, I think you have a good chance of finding the place quite different, possibly for the worse. The various scenarios are either chilling or hopeful, with little in the middle.


Scenario 1: China rises and rises

With this in mind, to see 2050, it would be wise to consider the world we live in today, as I said at the beginning. People are becoming less able to concentrate for long periods of time; the effects of the Internet, TV and computer games mean that most people do not really spend long thinking, really contemplating. Politics has become a bit of a soap opera in many democracies, and businesses are more powerful than at any time in history, some being classified in GDP listings alongside nations. China has had a part to play in this temporary, throw-away world we have permitted to come into being. For this reason, China may use this to its advantage, slowly infiltrating people's lives without them knowing, slowly affording itself the purchase of the odd bank here, the odd mining company there, an oil giant or two, plus some car companies, and gradually the world takes on a reddish hue.

Once various strategic firms have been purchased, the only way is up. The world will be a Chinese one. This is not an anomaly. The last three millennia have mostly been Chinese-dominated, with the exception of the 17th to 20th centuries, where the British, Americans and to some extent the Europeans have been in the ascendancy. Now things are going back the other way, and although most forecast this for the year 2050, I think it could be much, much sooner than that. If not already.

The Chinese could quite easily take advantage of the weak economies now at the mercy of the IMF, and choose to invest heavily in them. Imagine: the Chinese bail almost everyone out of the current mess, then start imposing their own policies and ideologies on everyone. I mean, there is no way the West would be able to further criticise China's dismal democratic record if they are the ones who put us back on track again. Furthermore, there would be reason to believe that businessmen and women favoured by the Chinese government would be sent to take control of those companies and banks bought or saved by them, and what then? If you dare criticise, insinuate, even look incredulously at their business policy or political stance, not only will you go out, but you may even be blackballed for various other positions elsewhere after.

Once this slow erosion of our rights has been noticed, only the people pigeonholed as conspiracy theorists, or those classed as slightly deluded will voice their opinions more strongly, but once it is too late, the rest may have understood.

Scenario II: China rises and falls

This is also a possibility, but could only happen if China makes some rash errors or gets too big for its own good. But how big can that be when you are a behemoth already, and have not even begun to execute your masterplan for world domination?

If China is to fail, then it will be a collective effort of everywhere else. And it will have to be done behind their backs - this may be impossible in the world as it is now, but once the Chinese have bought nearly everything that matters, own a sizeable chunk of the banks and have uncalculable mineral reserves to hand, then what would stop them? Only when the governments of the West have paid back their debts to China can they even think about tackling the re-establishment of democracy.

The Internet is currently politically neutral, but for how much longer? It may be a golden period for us, with free access to nearly everything, but with newspapers beginning to charge, with other outlets considering a priority list, it could go the way of US TV, which is full of advertising and only the good stuff is on pay-per-view. There is also nothing stopping China from influencing the future's media and broadcasting; allowing itself a self-congratulatory headline each day.

But there is an alternative.

An alternative so radical, it may not even work, but would be worth it just to keep us democratic: the governments of the Western world should consider having no truck whatsoever with China, keeping their hands free of debt to Asia and keeping it in the family, so to say. There could be an agreement where debt to each other is delayed so that debt to China can be the first repaid. Once that is out of the way, we can squabble amongst ourselves, but at least then we do not have the extra worry of having to do China's bidding.

A further way is that China could be the victim of its own success. Once, we dreamed that countries like Ireland and Spain were the Monaco and Switzerland of the future, but how wrong we were. Although I do not believe for one moment that China will be so complacent, I can see it taking some wrong decisions. Mainly, having too much going on at the same time. Empires always collapse in the end. The Chinese have learned from the Europeans that colonisation does not work as it causes rising anger in the places you colonised. The Chinese have also learned from the Americans and Russians that invasion wins you few friends and causes your expeditory departure from that place far more quickly. So they know now that the best way to conquer is to buy everything. In the corporate sector, where there are no political entities, no land borders, and where business pervades borders like tobacco smoke which does not remain solely in the smokers' area, the Chinese can make their mark where the Western powers failed.

We should not let this happen. However, considering the spineless leaders we have, I am sure they would sell their own grandmothers to make some money.

The world in 2050 - part II, the EU vs the USA vs China

When comparing Europe with the USA, the most obvious place to start would be with the military roles each side of the Atlantic plays in the world. The USA has had a long tradition of military intervention, and the EU has a great amount of nation-building expertise due to its colonialist past. You would think, therefore, that they were perfect for each other. No. Despite that, the USA has not really admitted that had Europe been given a greater say in its endeavours to establish nation states in the Middle East and central Asia, it might not be in the current situation of fighting on at least two fronts almost a decade on from "that" event. The USA has always deemed itself more capable than others in its military prowess, more prestigious in its powers to negotiate and more respected - or feared - in battle situations. This is far from the truth. As it happens, there is a chasm separating the ideals, purposes, abilities and capabilities of the military in Europe from that in the USA, and one of the basic differences is in intelligence. Both senses of the word.

In Europe, most military personnel is trained in warfare as well as peacetime skills, but those who sign up are also given an opportunity to gain a degree or qualification for after they have completed their service or if their careers are prematurely cut short (disability, illness, injury, etc.). In the USA, the majority of new members of the basic army are found at recruitment drives at supermarkets on week days. These are people who are already unemployed, sometimes long-term, often because they do not have any basic qualifications. They may have been deemed unemployable. In other words, I am not sure this is the sort of person you would give a gun to. Not all, of course. Many are career soldiers, naval officers and pilots, but a lot are going to give you a hard time in areas concerning discipline and approachability. I met some US Army personnel a while back and they seemed quite personable, if a little incapable of pulling a different face other than what I might call "haunted".

And in the other intelligence area, namely that of information gathering and execution, the USA has always been stubborn in accepting others' tip-offs and alarm-raising. But vice-versa seems to be working well, namely recently when a cargo plane from the Arabian Peninsula was found to have a package containing highly explosive material. The USA suffers from a superiority complex and in military affairs, its days as the world's only superpower are numbered. This is also due to its budget and operating costs. It is spending far too much time and money in two conflict zones in Asia and if a third theatre of action were to open, it would probably be incapable of coping.

For this reason, Europe needs to assert itself more on the military front. Its proposals to begin a proto-European military through British and French members is a start. But its intelligence and investigative skills could also benefit from a boost, especially considering it has the added bonus of being seen as a lot less aggressive than China and a lot less opinionated than the USA. Militarily, Europe could easily cut its field operations budget by joining forces, and at the same time developing its intelligence services. It can also show its credentials in nation-building and spreading democracy simply by listing what it has done to keep the EU's 21st-century member states from the wolves of dictatorship. Only 20 years ago, eleven of its new member states (the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and the eastern part of Germany) were shaking off five decades of communist dictatorship. Prior to that, Spain, Portugal and Greece had lived under Franco, Salazar and the Colonels respectively in various autocratic fascist or military régimes. It is only thirteen countries, less than half its current membership, which have been free of dictators (the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, France, Austria, Malta, and to some extent Cyprus).

The EU is setting itself up as a benign semi-superpower, able to help in a crisis, but less willing to spend great wads of cash on US-style intervention. The US, however, is a superpower on the wane, and within the next ten years, will find itself in the position the UK was in when Margaret Thatcher swept to power: it will need to downsize and sell of a lot of its own assets to keep afloat. It will also need to take a step back and look at itself because unlike the British at the end of the Empire, the Americans will be a lot less keen on relinquishing their title as military masters of all they survey. China is waiting to take over a large amount of American property and business, having saved up enormous amounts of cash, and soon India will enter the race. A new competition is about to begin, where those two battle it out for supremacy. My money is on a democratic India siding with the EU, other large Commonwealth countries, Japan and to some extent the USA, and China with its own sphere of influence, probably including its own backyard (Vietnam, Myanmar, North Korea, the 'Stans) and parts of Africa, its newly-extended backyard.

I can see China and the USA going head-to-head in some areas where they most want to exert influence, and cancelling each other out. This is where the EU can step in. It needs to focus on its own game, and not be too much influenced by others' squabbles. The EU can save money by keeping out of the buying game China is playing, vacuuming up all the gold, silver and diamonds it can, as well as all the banks, service enterprises and factories. The USA will try to match it, but they should not either. Eventually China will get too fat and explode. What we have to do in Europe is keep playing our own game, try to remain neutral, indifferent even, and attempt to extricate ourselves from some of the more worrying political and business deals we made with outside entities to reduce our debt.

The EU needs to keep to its own agenda, needs to shine a light of hope in dark times, and be a guide for democracy-loving people everywhere. What it should not be doing is competing, trying to be top dog. It does not need to do this because it is above all that. And all the armies in the world do not mean you are the best. You are the best if your streets are safe, if your nature is well-tended and preserved, if your hospitals are efficient, if your people do not have the worry of poverty if they cannot find work, if your politicians are held accountable to the forces of justice and can be easily removed, if your industrial base is well-regulated and has a good reputation and finally if you can say what you please, go where you want and learn the truth from an actively inquisitive press and get a free education in schools which do not force you to believe in an ideological right or wrong. It mostly does well here, with some countries being exceptions proving the rule.

This is where Europe excels and where it needs to stay. Leave the posturing to the Americans, Chinese and other would-be dominators and Europe can get on with the serious business of liberty and equality.