One of the difficult truths of humanitarian Affairs is that diversity and democracy do not always go together. Today in the middle East, as in Europe in the not so distant past, the transition from autocracy to democracy is associated with ethnic and religious cleansing. Throughout the world there are numerous examples of successful democratic countries that in fact are ethnic States, built on the basis of cleansing division of territories or “bright solitude”, as they call the doctrine of waiver of long-lasting unions. And in the West, mass immigration and the crushing of crops in recent years brought back to life the authoritarian ambitions.
These patterns are deeply entrenched in the history of the human race. Economists Oded Galor (Oded Galor) and mark clamp (Marc Klemp), in his new study found a close relationship between ethnocultural diversity and autocracy in pre-colonial societies. The consequences of this Association remain in today’s institutions. The authors argue that authoritarianism is the result of the upward and downward pressure. Diverse in ethnic and cultural terms, the company is committed to creating a strong centralized government in the interests of cohesion and productivity. And internal differences, the stratification of society and distrust and create conditions for the domination of powerful elites.
In the US we often think that we are the exception to the General rule, and we believe that despite the sad fate of Indian tribes and the system of slave labor, we are more successful that others brought to life the Republican government in conjunction with racial and religious diversity.
But at the same time, we have no government that existed in the cities and towns of New England. America has become much more diverse, and in recent years, and razgromlena, in connection with which power is increasingly concentrated in Washington, and in its center the office of President carries more authority. Work style Donald trump’s unique in itself, but it is also a consequence of the tendencies which appeared many years ago. We are still the Republican form of government, but at the same time we received some sort of favourites of the Emperor, who rules over our many races, not always assimilated immigrants are more distrustful sects, tribes and classes.
The EU has no such sole leader, but its ruling class was in a similar situation, becoming the guardian of a varied Empire. He’s trying to rule the Greeks and the Germans, the Scandinavians and Sicilians, the indigenous Christians and Muslims of immigrant background, possessing powers which are remote from democratic accountability.
Realizing the challenges thrown Western leadership, we must think about how authoritarian regimes in our world belong to ethnic and religious diversity: exploit it, control it, or both.
In General, the evolving authoritarian power allows absolute or relative majority of the population to hold the reins contrary to the claims of various minorities and to impose some form of uniformity weaker ethnic and religious groups. Obvious examples in this respect are the Erdogan regime in Turkey and snitsky authoritarianism of the Saudi monarchy, as well as Han chauvinism of the Chinese Politburo, Russian Orthodox nationalism of Putin and so on.
There is another pattern. The autocratic leader, who is sometimes himself of minorities presents itself as a defender of diversity, and promises protection for minorities, who will be in danger if you take the top of the populism of the majority. So ruled by the Assad family in Syria, backed by the Alawite sect of Syrian Christians and other groups, fearing the consequences of the reign of the Sunnis. The Egyptian military regime also promises to protect the urban population and Coptic Christians from the Islamist government, which could bring with it democracy.
These patterns can be traced in our own Imperial… excuse me, presidential politics. The coalition that Barack Obama amassed over two presidential terms, combined minority groups and intellectuals from the upper strata of society, promising to defend their interests from the remnants of white Christian center. Trump responded in the manner of Erdogan and Putin, promising to protect dominant in the past, most, to recover its privileges and to eliminate the feeling of cultural decline.
Meanwhile, in Europe often think that the EU for its own benefit run by the Germans in the centre and the ethnic minorities on the periphery who prefer the separatists and immigrants, not the old national majority. The current rise of populism, in turn, is an attempt to create a different dynamic on the continent, so Germany had less power to close doors to immigrants to Europe, and to the old nation re-established as centers of influence.
I think neither America nor Europe are going to in fact slide into the swamp of autocracy. But paradoxically, there is a liberal order can better protect those leaders, who have in some way Imperial point of view. Not in the sense that they intend to impose their policies by fire and sword, and that they are aware of a new reality: their society is now so various that require a more impartial and unprejudiced ideas and views of their leaders.
Such an impartial ruler (let’s call it good Emperor) will reassure the population and to give him confidence, recognizing that in a diverse, fragmented and untrusting society any ruling coalition will seem dangerous to those who are not members. If the Emperor came from the traditionally dominant group and acts on its behalf and in its interests, he must do all he can to reassure minorities and newcomers. If he forms a coalition of minorities, he needs to calm still the majority, assuring him that he in this country in the future will find a worthy place. Whatever the basis of his power, the Emperor must be constantly adjusted in such a tone to the political conflict because of ethnic and cultural differences, disagreements and mistrust seemed the least possible.
Two of our previous President recognized that the need to exert effort in this direction. But there were exceptions, because George Bush after September 11, and Obama during his campaign in 2008 has not achieved much success. As for Obama, the White house under his leadership did not understand how forgotten and abandoned she feels white people in the Outback, and a crisis is brewing there, creating a new electoral bloc with the new identity. He also did not understand how dangerous the imposition of liberal sexual norms of the state seemed to be religious conservatives, and how strange they felt in their own country.
In the Wake of this alienation and fear arose trump, who is not even anybody’s trying to reassure. His nationalism looks bigger than the politics of identity, to fear his administration groups understand what he thinks about them and responds to their concerns. Perhaps there is some form of nationalism, which helps to bind together a diverse society, but trump is more inclined to rally the “true American” ex-majority in opposition to all other racial, religious and other groups.
His successor, whether liberal or conservative, should not follow the example of Assad, Erdogan and Putin. But he (or she) will be able to learn something from the guardians of diverse and fragmented societies from a previous era, say, the Hapsburg monarchy, which tried to restrain and counterbalance the religious and ethnic differences, to prevent disintegration and totalitarianism. She could survive a lot longer if not for the folly of 1914.
If we want President-Emperor, we need a President who does not think as a party leader and as a good Emperor, which is not divide and rule and tries to create their Empire in such an atmosphere to its diverse peoples feel safe and like home.