On 20 touko, 00:29, ++ <fri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Marko Amnell wrote:
[...]
> >"According to Transparency International, the only
> >country with higher income per capita and more
> >corruption than Russia is Equatorial Guinea. That is
> >hardly a standard worthy of a great nation."
>
> >http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1016/42/362262.htm
>
> >Still no evidence? Well, why don't you contact
> >Transparency International and ask them how
> >they arrived at that conclusion.
>
> And you are assuming that people here aren't familiar with Transparency
> International...
Let's get back to my initial disagreement with you.
You said that Russia is a Western country. That
is what I disagreed with. The high level of corruption
is just one indication that Russia is not a Western
country. It's not even the most fundamental reason.
The fundamental reason is that Russia has
developed a new model of economic development.
This is an interesting turn of events in world
history. Among other things, it disproves Francis
Fukuyama's thesis about "the end of history."
The most interesting theorist of this new model
of economic development is Sergei Karaganov.
I posted a link to one of his articles earlier.
Here is the link again.
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/21/1148.html
Below is the part that deals with the new model
of economic development. If you want to argue
that Russia is a Western country, you should
counter Karaganov's arguments (and other
similar arguments showing that Russia is not
developing according to the Western model).
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is yet another aspect to this bitter global rivalry, namely, the
emerging struggle between two models of development =96 liberal-
democratic capitalism of the traditional West, and =93authoritarian
capitalism=94 led by the Asian =93tigers=94 and =93dragons.=94 The West
considered the rapid economic progress of the Southeast Asian
countries and South Korea to be an exception rather than a rule.
However, China=92s rapid growth, despite predictions over the past 20
years about its imminent collapse, does not permit indulging in
escapism anymore.
The victory of liberal-democratic capitalism in the Cold War created
an illusion that this victory was final. The =93end of history,=94
predicted by Francis Fukuyama, has not materialized, but not simply
because the collapse of the bloc system has brought about growing
chaos. As it turned out, competition is not over: the defeated planned
socialist economy has been replaced by a new model, which potentially
is very attractive, especially to the former Third World countries =96
that is, the majority of humanity. This model is authoritarian semi-
democratic capitalism, effective economically and acceptable
politically.
Unlike Communism, capitalism ensures the growth (albeit an uneven
growth) of the wellbeing for the majority of people; and unlike
totalitarian Communism, authoritarianism =96 or limited democracy =96
ensures an acceptable level of personal freedom for the same
majority.
The rivalry between the two varieties of capitalism was analyzed by
Israeli strategist Azar Gat in the influential U.S. journal Foreign
Affairs. =93Authoritarian capitalist states, today exemplified by China
and Russia, may represent a viable alternative path to modernity,
which in turn suggests that there is nothing inevitable about liberal
democracy=92s ultimate victory =96 or future dominance,=94 he wrote. =93A
successful nondemocratic Second World could then be regarded by many
as an attractive alternative to liberal democracy.=94
It may well be that =93authoritarian capitalism=94 is only one stage in
the development toward a more liberal model. After all, before the
second half of the last century, many countries in Western Europe and
the United States had features that are now characteristic of those
states that have so-called authoritarian capitalism.
Nevertheless, the liberal-democratic victors now see that they are
beginning to suffer defeat. The =93mission=94 in the Middle East has
weakened the global position of the United States, which in turn has
made democracy per se less attractive. Furthermore, the mostly
unsuccessful =91color revolutions=92 im****ted to former Soviet republics
was a less noticeable, yet substantial, blow to the idea of democracy.
Meanwhile, the democratic elections in Palestine have plunged the
country into a civil war. Lebanon, which is quite democratic, has been
set on fire, while its neighbor =96 the authoritarian Syria =96 is
developing quite well.
The competition of models is not just a struggle for the sense of
moral superiority. In the long run, the victory of a particular model
will be translated into a redistribution of manpower and other
resources in favor of those states that sup****t such a model. The
period from the late 1980s to the beginning of the 2000s saw a huge
redistribution of resources in favor of the United States and Western
Europe. Now the process may reverse itself, especially as the success
of authoritarian capitalism and the weakening of the positions of
democracy have coincided in time with another tectonic ****ft: the
center of the global economy and geopolitics is moving away from the
Euro-Atlantic to the Asian space.
States that are liberal-democratic yet economically weak must
automatically orient themselves to the West and follow in the wake of
its policy. However, if another model proves successful, some states
will have an op****tunity to reorient themselves, or at least have more
room for maneuver.
Russia, for example =96 by demonstrating to the post-Soviet and
developing countries that they can successfully organize their
economies in other ways, and not only according to the dependent
liberal-democratic model of Central and Eastern Europe =96 is restoring,
albeit very slowly, its ability to attract medium-developed societies
and countries. Many neighboring societies, tired of poverty, chaos and
uncertainty, are eager to emulate the sovereign system of Russia,
which is showing growth and is better governed. In addition,
authoritarian rulers of many states prefer to have a tough yet
predictable Russia that would not encroach on their sovereignty as
their neighbor.
History has pushed Russia into the center of a new competitive
struggle between the liberal-democratic and authoritarian models of
capitalism. Russia is a key state from the point of view of
competition between political and socio-economic models, and is,
moreover, capable of tipping the military-political balance in the
world.
Mistrust toward the authoritarian development model largely explains
European suspicion about Russia=92s energy policy. An authoritarian
state finds it easier to manipulate its energy and other assets for
foreign-policy purposes. In this sense, democracy, especially weak
democracy, is more convenient for partners, as it is less suited for
such manipulation.
So, Russia is now in the midst of two new competitions at once, which
will largely determine the future of the world. These are competitions
between energy producers and consumers for control over energy
resources, and between different varieties of capitalism. Moreover,
Russia is situated on three critical divides =96 between radical Islam
and Christian civilization, between the rich and the poor, and between
Europe and Asia.
In the past, the latter divide was a choice between modernity and
backwardness, freedom and tyranny, individualism and collectivism, and
capitalism and feudalism, and in the long run, between progress and
stagnation. Today, however, the rapidly growing East has actually
become a new West.
|
