Double helix continued

Niall Ferguson was the first to ask out loud in his book “Cash Nexus” whether democracy and capitalism could be the double helix of the modern world. I believe I was the first to think it. However, I am glad the question came first from a person of his stature and credentials because if I had put out this idea first I don’t think I would have been taken seriously. Admittedly, it is a rather odd idea.

Here is the mindset that led to my unorthodox conclusion: When I first started studying democracy, capitalism and human governance, I felt that democracy and capitalism were special. Their exceptionalism occurred to me as I wondered about the collapse of communism. It wasn't just that communism collapsed. It seemed to have collapsed in favor of them. And its collapse didn't spawn a new form of government but instead the void left was filled by democracy and capitalism (Democracy). I believe this happened because there was no alternative or choice in human governance left.

To my mind, humankind had reached a point where all other possible forms of government had been exhausted. Over a period of time the combination of democracy and capitalism had shown that as a system they were the only practical means of government for the future, if Civilization wanted to survive and continue. I felt in good company thinking this because it is essentially what Fukuyama said in his book “The End Of History”.

Unlike the dramatic upheavals that came with changes in human governance, like with the revolutionary birth of Communism or Nazism, Democracy’s ascendency was not marked by political violence, Democracy's triumph and acceptance instead occurred tacitly, like a ‘quiet revolution’. This suggested to me that the world had reached a level of sophistication and understanding where it no longer needed to decide by violent means how it was ultimately going to organize and govern itself.
 
The triumph of Democracy didn’t happen randomly or because it out-witted, out-flanked or out-spent Communism. It triumphed through a process of elimination. Human governance basically has been an empirical exercise, keeping those things that work and eliminating those things that didn’t work. When humankind started to experiment with types of governances it wasn’t sure what type it would eventually require. That’s because it was still evolving and it wasn’t quite sure in what direction it was evolving. The emergence of the modern world changed all that. It is mostly the modern world which has determined what governance or government has eventually triumphed. If it was a static world Communism may have triumphed. But since it’s a constantly changing, fluctuating, world, Civilization and humankind chose Democracy because the components of democracy and capitalism can best manage it.

There is one other reason why Democracy triumphed. It is predisposed to humankind’s inherent needs and aspirations unlike Communism and other form of government before.

I believe democracy and capitalism are the double helix of the modern world because they were the two surviving doctrines of governance in the world. Both for some time have been at the heart of Western governance, a governance, I might add, that’s generally been quite successful. However, as I said in the previous essay, many intellectuals still consider them opposing doctrines. But for me the fact that they have coexisted in opposition for some time and continue to do so tells me they were meant to be together and that neither can survive without the other. I will use what somebody else said to help me make this point.

“Has Democracy a Future" is an article written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. for Foreign Affairs, back in 1997. In response to his own question he wrote, “While democracy requires capitalism, capitalism doesn’t require democracy, at least in the short run”. In the short run? Essentially what that statement says is that capitalism, in the long run, requires democracy. Schlesinger was forthcoming about how democracy requires capitalism: “Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom.” However, he didn’t venture into how capitalism might require democracy.

I think I found reason why in the long run capitalism requires democracy. I found it in the economies once known as that “Asia Tigers”, who in their rush to emulate the industrial West only adopted capitalistic principles. I understand why they didn’t equally embraced democratic principles. If they had, democracy’s disruptive tendencies would have impeded them from attaining their economic goals. Capitalism on the quick can ill afford such a distraction. For a time these countries were extremely successful, to the point of even outperforming the West economically. However, having reached the limits of unfettered capitalism they recognized that, due to external and internal pressures, sustainable capitalism require reform, which only democratic activity and institutions can deliver. For instance, democratic practices affords the transparency and accountability that sustainable capitalism requires. For example, investors will not continue to invest or do business in companies or countries who’s accounting practices can’t be scrutinized - a requirement capitalism is not inclined to furnish on its own. Democracy brings about reform that also combats destructive, corrupt business practices. Moreover, unfettered capitalism is too high octane to be endured for a prolonged period of time and thus needs modification and tempering, something only democracy can do. If left to its own devises, capitalism can be ruinous, as we have witnessed.

Capitalism needs the antithesis of democracy to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. Democracy needs the antithesis of capitalism to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. In essence that is how a double helix behaves, challenging the other to do better. The litigious discourse and agitation capitalism introduces through the marketplace, through participation in it and in private ownership as Schelinger explained, does keep democracy legitimate and vital. Karl Marx, one of the great theorists on human governance, didn’t see the need for this kind of antithesis in government because he wasn’t a dualist. But to his credit he foresaw that capitalism would implode if its contradiction went unchallenged, which democracy does challenge. And visa versa.