380. Disappointments of illusory perfection

Democracy is a mess. Much criticism of it is understandable and justified, given the many inconsistencies, errors, jumbles, and major and minor injustices. It is often a procession of two steps ahead and one back. However, criticism overshoots when obsessed with the illusion of perfection, in consistent, rational, intelligent design. That is like demanding an elephant to leap like a leopard.

Democracy can work only in its imperfection. It is wrought from compromises between largely irreconcilable political ideologies, and that is how it should be. Ideals get lost in translation. This inevitably yields outcomes no one can reliably predict, and many will not like. The drive for perfection, without errors and inconsistencies, in rational design, can only be satisfied by dropping ideologies, which leads to an inscrutable technocracy, as has been happening in Europe, or by imposing a single master ideology, which leads to authoritarianism.

Criticism is crucial but can only contribute to imperfection on the move, in muddling through, ‘bricolage’, as Levi-Straus called it.

A first paradox is this. On the one hand democracies entail rival ideologies, but on the other hand one must allow for imperfections in their compromises, which requires a non-dogmatic adherence to one’s ideology.

A second paradox is this. On the one hand democracies require transparency of motives, but often ideals are paraded as reasons while in fact the reasons lie in electoral concerns. Policies must sell to voters, to ensure the next electoral victory, but this must be hidden in ideological rhetoric.

Ideologies that win in the tug of democracy can produce uninformed, wrongheaded decisions that go foul, producing economic hardship or even horrors of war, but this must be hidden in a twisting of historical facts.

In organization science there is the notion of ‘espoused theory’ and ‘theory in use’. The first is the ideological lore, the second what actually happens to serve hidden interests. There is something similar in politics: espoused policy and policy in use.

Take, for an illustration, the recent financial crisis in Greece. The then minister of economic affairs, Yanis Varoufakis, rationally argued, quite correctly, that a substantial part of the Greek debt had to be cancelled in order to give Greece some basis for economic growth, needed to repay any debt. The IMF agreed with him, but the Eurogroup of EU finance ministers did not. In the corridors, Varoufakis was told he was right but should not push his argument and should conform.  

Conform to what? A rational reason for the EU was to set an example to prevent other countries for also hiving off their debt onto the citizens of the EU. After all, that is also what the banks had done, and efforts were now made to prevent that in the future as well. Was that the real reason? The result was that not the Greek banks were saved but the Banks in Germany and the Netherlands that held the claims on the Greek banks. Was that the result from pressure from those banks? Perhaps.

I suspect that the real reason rather was fear of the rising populist sentiment in the Netherlands and Germany ‘not to give away any more money to the lazy Greeks’. This is devious and dishonest, and highly unjust to the Greek population that bore the  hardship of the consequences. Yet, there is political purpose involved beyond electoral self-interest. Emerging populism had to be pacified to avoid the disaster of it taking over.      

This illustrates how different rationalities and expediencies may be in conflict that cannot be resolved to the benefit of all.   

The point now is that this is happening all the time. It is too easy to simply blame it on ‘conspiracies of the elite’ dedicated to their own advantage. There is that too, no doubt, but the main problem is that of ‘system tragedy’. This gives no reason to give up criticism, but that criticism must see through the imperfection of the system to be effective, to make the imperfection move, knowing that perfection is unattainable. The task of critics and the media is, I think, to see through the espoused policies and expose the policies in use, and bring those out into the open for debate.

Another illustration is the refugee crisis in the Middle East. It has been claimed, correctly I think, that a major cause of it was Western military intervention in Iraq and Syria, which were secular countries, tolerating different faiths (though with tensions between Sunni and Shiite muslims). The interventions led to wars, and the emergence of ISIS, which yielded calamitous numbers of deaths and floods of refugees. Religious tolerance disappeared (and the rift between Sunni and Shiite deepened). True, but what is the implication? Does this yield an argument for more absorption of refugees by western countries? It does, and it might even be feasible, but the political reality, here again, is the populist disgust of refugees. Even Angela Merkel had to renege on her exceptionally courageous aim for unlimited entry.

In financial markets consumers are told that success in the past yield no guarantee for the future. In politics failures in the past yield no guarantee for redress in the future. Instead, the blame is covered up. Criticism is needed to prevent this and bring it into the open, to move imperfection, for lessons to be learned, and to achieve the best possible redress. Moral arguments of responsibility will not win the day, but they may limit the losses. 

The only consolation there is, is that the alternative of an authoritarian regime is even worse. Democracy is imperfection on the move. An authoritarian regime is imperfection dug in.