The Illusion of the Independent Dictator

At the end of a previous posting „Grown Men Do Not Need Leaders“ there was a question which is reformulated here: Although in most (Western) democracies there are independent institutions controlling the power of the elected governments (like e.g. supreme court, financial regulation or consumer protection), how come that it doesn't work the way Popper believed it should? (And how come that more and more people have the impression of being faced with a democracy solely on paper, a faked democracy?)

One of the replies to this posting was: „it doesn't work without leaders! People need a leader, a strong hand guiding them!“

One could have expected other objections like that - in practice - the mentioned institutions are neither free nor independent. Thus, the reply is surprising on the one hand. On the other hand, it is not surprising at all, because one can still hear it so often. If you go to Russia for instance, you will hear it all the time. Putin is said to be Russia's hero, because he's the strong hand Russia needs and he prevented the country (or the empire) from further breakdown – in contrast to the much hated Gorbatchov and Jelzin in the nineties. Also in the US, you can hear the call for a strong leadership in ever election campaign and people are often disgusted by fruitless congressional debates. The more chaos, the more demanding the wish for a strong leader. Sometimes it appears to be a kind of reflex … it seems you can't kill it. But it's not a reflex. It's an illusion.

Let's go back to 1944, when Karl Popper's „The Open Society and it's Enemies“ was about to be published. Hitler and Stalin were still in power and they were the epitome of strong leaders – no one can doubt that. Popper stated the theory of (uncontrolled) sovereignty as follows: „that political power is practically unchecked, or for the demand that it ought to be so; together with the implication that the main question left is to get this power into the best hands.“ (chapter 7/I)

But before he starts to argue against this theory, he calls in question the picture of the independent/almighty leader some people were still maintaining at that time. And it is these simple remarks questioning an old and problematic concept – not even arguing against it- which make Popper's writings still so valuable.

„Without entering into a detailed criticism, I wish to point out that there are serious objections against a rash and implicit acceptance of this theory. Whatever its speculative merits may appear to be, it is certainly a very unrealistic assumption. No political power has ever been unchecked, and as long as men remain human (as long as the ‘Brave New World’ has not materialized), there can be no absolute and unrestrained political power. So long as one man cannot accumulate enough physical power in his hands to dominate all others, just so long must he depend upon his helpers. Even the most powerful tyrant depends upon his secret police, his henchmen and his hangmen. This dependence means that his power, great as it may be, is not unchecked, and that he has to make concessions, playing one group off against another. It means that there are other political forces, other powers besides his own, and that he can exert his rule only by utilizing and pacifying them. This shows that even the extreme cases of sovereignty are never cases of pure sovereignty. They are never cases in which the will or the interest of one man (or, if there were such a thing, the will or the interest of one group) can achieve his aim directly, without giving up some of it in order to enlist powers which he cannot conquer. And in an overwhelming number of cases, the limitations of political power go much further than this.“ (Popper [1945], chapter 7/1)

The Illusion of the Good Hegemon

"Throughout the post-war period, the US functioned as the
international monetary system’s hegemon. It was a ‘benign hegemony’,
or what has been called an act of ‘hegemonic benevolence’. The
US provided leadership, stability and the opportunity for the world
economy to flourish, through the pursuit of monetary management
and freer trade. An inevitable consequence of the success of this
hegemony, and the growth of the world economy, some would
argue, was the relative dispersal of the power of the hegemon. As
other states grew in economic strength and stature, and began to
challenge the authority of the hegemon, so there was a relative
decline in the ability of the US to lay down the law. It is this natural
cycle of hegemonic decline that some pinpoint as the direct cause for
the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system."

Economides, Spyros; Wilson, Peter: The Economic Factor In International Relations, I.B. Tauris, New York, 2001, p.79.

This is how strong double-speak may influence historic views. Spyros and Wilson forgot to remember the Corean War (1950-53), the CIA overthrowing of Mohammed Mossadegh and installation of the cruel Shah regime in Iran 1953, CIA-sponsored 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état toppling President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the Vietnam-War (1955–64), the constant interventions and eventually bombing in Laos (1957-73), the installation of the ferocious "Papa Doc" Duvalier regime in Haiti (1959), the Vietnam War (1959–75), all the Cold-War activities of the US secrete services and military especially in South-America, Africa and Europe, Cambodia (1970), ... only to mention a few key-words fitting into the Bretton-Woods time period (1944-1971). The underlying mistake constituting such an erroneous, one-sided historical view of the alleged "hegemonic benevolence" of the USA is the separation between economy and politics and the blanking out of the latter. The economy of the Western sphere of influence during the Cold War has grown as a whole supported by a series of brutal US-interventions: this is how the begnin hegemon had to defend his monetary and economic system. Dissidents had to be kept in line (whether communists or not). Hegemony is almost always brutal and it is unbearably costly almost with necessity. The good hegemon is a cruel illusion.




Other base2014 blog posts on hegemony:


Hegemony and Dominance (Hegemonie und Dominanz)
Für's Protokoll (For the Record)

Der Wahre Grund für den Irakkrieg? (True Reason for the Invasion Of Iraq?)
Hegemonic Stability Theory
The First Question in International Political Economy
Brot und Spiele und Militär
Hegemony and So-Called Moral Leadership
Friends of a Dictator
Egypt Uprising - Standard Routine for an Unusual Event
Deutsche Gotteslästerung/German Blasphemy
III Warum Deutsche in Afghanistan kämpfen/Why Germans fight in Afghanistan
II Warum Deutsche in Afghanistan kämpfen/Why Germans fight in Afghanistan
I Warum Deutsche in Afghanistan kämpfen/Why Germans fight in Afghanistan
Hegemony Cables
U.S. Citizens without vote/U.S. Bürger ohne Stimmrecht
Egypt's Cyber Dissidents

Grown Men Do Not Need Leaders (Erwachsene Menschen brauchen keine Führer)

"The fact that our society is in part the result of deliberate reforms - this fact is not to be forgotten. It can guide us in going on reforming but - and this is now very important - each man intervening in politics in one or the other way, by maintaining theories or by supporting some ideology, should be fully aware of two things: He should be aware that he is carrying an enormous responsibility and he must be aware of the havoc he could wreak. He ought to remember that he knows nothing and has to learn to keep his mind open and that he ought not pretend to know when he does not. He must criticize himself and be capable of steadily improving his theories about state and society. The political "leader principle" ("Führertum") is rubbish. Herbert George Wells, the English writer, has once put it very nice and simple: "Grown Men don't need leaders". But they also should not try to appear as such."

Karl Popper, Vienna, May 1983 (cf. Popper/Lorenz [1985], p.109, translation from German by base2014)

Popper's „man, intervening in politics“: doesn't he stand in hardly bearable contrast to the traditional picture of politicians? For the latter it is impossible to admit failures, to know nothing or to learn from mistakes – since he will not be able to speak to the public of his failures without being forced to abandon his activities. To criticize himself is not a negotiable position for a politician without being  prompted to resign from office. The culture of „flawlessness“ is in fact so dominant that even the most obvious failures are being taken along into the grave – like when politicians to the last breath declare they would „do the same again“ as they did during their term in office.

Popper's ideal of the „man intervening in politics“ is the philosopher of his own thinking-style critical rationalism – a scientist of intellectual integrity. However, for this person it would be impossible to appear as a leader, since he would be under constant criticism of free and independent institutions, from a supreme court, a financial regulation or a consumer protection through to a free and independent journalism. It's these institutions – if not corrupted – that make this attractive thought of „grown men not needing leaders“ more plausible – because they would then decide themselves, each time after critical discussion.

So, when we take a look at the countries having free institutions, why doesn't it work the way Popper imagined?

Karl Raimund Popper

Karl Popper postings on base2014
Unasked Anwers, Unanswered Questions
Unhappy Teachers
The Modest Gardener
To Put Something Out of Your Body
Who Should Rule?

"Die Tatsache, daß unsere Gesellschaft zum Teil das Resultat von bewußter Reform ist -- diese Tatsache soll nicht vergessen werden. Sie kann uns dazu helfen, weiter zu reformieren, aber -- und das ist jetzt sehr wichtig -- jeder Mensch, der sich in Politik in irgendeiner Weise hineinmischt, durch Theorien oder mittels einer neuen Ideologie, sollte sich zweier Dinge bewußt sein: Er muß sich dessen bewußt sein, daß er eine ungeheure intellektuelle Verantwortung trägt, und er muß sich dessen bewußt sein, daß er auch Schaden stiften kann. Er muß daran denken, daß er nichts weiß und lernen muß, daß er seinen Kopf offen halten muß und daß er nicht vorgeben darf, daß er weiß, wenn er nichts weiß. Er muß sich selbst kritisieren und dauernd seine Lehren über den Staat und die Gesellschaft verbessern können. Das politische Führertum ist Blödsinn. Der Engländer H. G. Wells hat einmal sehr schön und einfach gesagt: »Grown men do not need leaders.« Auf Deutsch: »Erwachsene Menschen brauchen keine Führer.« Sie sollen aber auch nicht versuchen, als Führer aufzutreten."

Karl Popper, Vienna, May 1983 (cf. Popper/Lorenz [1985], p.109

Poppers „Mensch, der sich in die Politik einmischt“: steht er nicht in schwer verdaulichem Gegensatz zum herkömmlichen Bild des Politikers? Letzterem ist es unmöglich zuzugeben, nichts zu wissen oder (aus Fehlern) zu lernen – da er in der Öffentlichkeit nicht lange von eigenen Fehlern sprechen kann ohne seine Tätigkeit aufgeben zu müssen. Sich selbst zu kritisieren wird keinem Politker zugestanden ohne ihn gleichzeitig zum Rücktritt aufzufordern. Die Kultur der „Fehlerlosigkeit“ ist so dominant, dass sogar die offensichtlichsten Fehler mit ins Grab genommen werden – wenn Politiker bis zum letzten Atemzug beteuern „heute wieder dieselben Entscheidungen zu treffen“ wie während ihrer Amtszeit.

Was Popper als Ideal des „Menschen, der sich in die Politik einmischt“ vorgeschwebt zu haben scheint, war das Bild des kritisch-rationalen Philosphen seiner eigenen Denkrichtung … der Typ des intellektuell integeren Wissenschaftlers. Dieser Mensch würde allerdings nicht im Sinne eines Führers auftreten können, da er unter beständiger Kritik freier, unabhängiger Institutionen stünde – Institutionen wie einem obersten Gerichtshof, einer Finanzaufsicht oder eines Konsumenten- (Verbraucherschutzes) bis hin zu einem freien Journalismus. Unter relativ unkorrumpierten freien Institutionen kann man sich dann durchaus vorstellen, dass erwachsene Menschen keinen Führer brauchen.

Nun, wenn wir einen Blick auf die Staaten werfen, die über diese freien Intitutionen verfügen: warum funktioniert das nicht so, wie sich das Popper vorstellte?

200

"Pressefreiheit ist die Freiheit von zweihundert reichen Leuten, ihre Meinung zu verbreiten. Journalisten, die diese Meinung teilen, finden sie immer."(1965)

Dies ist ein Zitat des Nazipropagandisten Paul Sethe, einem der fünf Gründungsherausgeber der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung“ zwischen 1949 und 1955 und wird heute im österreichischen „Standard“ von Paul Lendvai zitiert, einem Granden des österreichischen Journalismus und Spezialisten für Osteuropa. Anläßlich des Abhörskandals eines der Blätter Rupert Murdochs berichtet er über „Medien und Macht“ und verliert ein paar kryptische Bemerkungen über „mächtige ausländische Mediengruppen, vor allem aus Deutschland und der Schweiz“, die „in den postkommunistischen Reformstaaten Mittel- und Osteuropas wegen Profitmaximierung zuerst mit exkommunistischen Seilschaften, aber auch mit machthungrigen nationalistischen und radikalen politischen Gruppen paktiert“ hätten. Er nennt tatsächlich keine Namen oder sonstige Details und das mag seine Gründe haben.

„Freedom of the press is the freedom of two hundred rich people to spread their opinions. And they can always find journalists sharing their opinions.“ (1965)

This was said by Nazi-propagandist Paul Sethe, one of the five founding editors of the „Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“ between 1949 and 1955. The quotation appeared today in the Austrian journal „Standard“, at the beginning of an article by Paul Lendvai, a dyed-in-the-wool politicial journalist of Austria, specialist for Eastern Europe. On occasion of the phone-hacking scandal of one of Rupert Murdoch's papers, he wrote on „Media and Power“ and made a few cryptical remarks on „powerful foreign media-groups, especially from Germany and Switzerland“ which „in the post-communistic reform countries - motivated by profit maximization - had made first their pacts with ex-communistic cliques, but also with power-hungry nationalistic and radical political bands“. He didn't mention any names or other details and he might have his reasons.  

Surveil Ordinary Citizens! (Überwache ganz normale Bürger!)

(English Version)
Shameless exaggeration of the dangers coming from the so-called international terrorism, communism or radical Islam etc, creates an external threat. Shameless exaggeration of the danger coming from collaborators of the former, critics and dissidents creates an internal threat (key word "sleeper cell"). What we get is Naomi Wolf's Principle Nr. 1: Invoke an External and Internal Threat! And from there, it's only a little step to her Principle Nr. 4 : Surveil Ordinary Citizens! Both procedures can be found in her "The End of America. Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" (2007), dealing with principles of how to destroy (real) democracies.

As she points out, it's not about observing and monitoring each citizen, keeping a dossier on him, and even less about total surveillance as in Orwell's 1984 (which turns out very costly). According to Wolf it's much more effective to create a notion of possibly being under observation. For dictators the purpose of surveillance is more of psychological nature, dealing with intimidation and finally with obedience and submission: by collecting all kinds of data of ordinary citizens  - starting with books they buy or lend, their sexual life, their financial decisions, right through to their telephone calls, joining demonstrations or  medical data - what is happening is a production of data which can be used against citizens and, if necessary, will be used against them. In her chapter 5, Wolf offers a lot of examples of these shady practices in the USA (before and after 9/11), Nazi-Germany, East Germany, China and the Sowjet Union. (Germany's surveillance fanatics of today are not mentioned.)

In the final analysis, Wolf's remarks in this chapter remain on a rather trivial level. No attention is paid to the collaboration of mass-media in spreading this kind of politics of fear. Nevertheless the mass-media take the leading role in this strange play, yet appearing so familiar through history. It's because the spreading of angst - the politics of fear - is only working successfully by uncritical (or intended) copy & paste forwarding of propaganda, typos included. And fear is needed for pushing through any of the restricions of citizen's rights Wolf is criticizing. Also, Wolf totally blocks out economical aspects though it is well known and easy to understand that the security sector is another winner of the politics of fear, world-wide.

Other postings on "The End of America. Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" (2007)

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (1)

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (2)

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (3)

(Deutsche Version)

Die schamlose Übertreibung der Gefahr des sog. internationalen Terrorismus, des Kommunismus, des radikalen Islam usw., schafft einen äußeren Feind. Die schamlose Übertreibung der Gefahr von Kollaborateuren, Kritikern und Dissidenten bezüglich des ersteren schafft den inneren Feind.  Und schon sind wir bei Naomi Wolfs Prinzip Nr. 1: Beschwöre eine äußere und eine innere Gefahr! Und von dort ist es nur ein kleiner Schritt zu Prinzip Nr. 4: Überwache ganz normale Bürger! Beide Verfahrensweisen stammen aus ihrem "Wie zerstört man eine Demokratie. Das 10-Punkte Programm " (2010).

Dabei geht es nicht darum, tatsächlich alle Bürger zu überwachen, von jedem einzelnen ein Dossier anzulegen, noch weniger um die totale Überwachung wie in Orwell's 1984 (die sehr kostenintensiv wäre). Viel effektiver laut Wolf ist das Gefühl zu erzeugen, daß man überwacht werden könnte. Die Zwecke, die Diktatoren damit verfolgen, sind psychologischer Natur und drehen sich um Einschüchterung und letztlich um Gehorsam: mit dem Sammeln von allerlei Daten ganz normaler Bürger - von den Büchern, die sie kaufen oder ausleihen, ihrem Sexualleben, ihren finanziellen Entscheidungen, bis zu ihren Telefongesprächen, den Teilnahmen an Demonstrationen oder medizinischen Daten - werden Informationen produziert, die man gegen die Bürger verwenden kann und, falls nötig, tatsächlich auch gegen sie verwendet. Beispiele für diese Praktiken in den USA (vor und nach 9/11), Nazideutschland, der DDR, China und der Sowjetunion findet man in Wolfs 5. Kapitel zuhauf. (Die Überwachungsfanatiker im heutigen Deutschland werden nicht erwähnt.)

Letztlich bleiben ihre Ausführungen in diesem Kapitel eher auf trivialem Niveau. Der Kollaboration und der Initiative von Massenmedien bei der Verbreitung von Angst-Politik etwa wird keine Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Dabei kommt diesen die Hauprolle bei diesem seltsamen, aber doch so vertrauten Spiel zu. Denn die Verbreitung von Furcht - die Politik der Angst -  funktioniert ausschliesslich über unkritische (oder beabsichtigte) Copy&Paste Weiterleitung von Propaganda, inklusive Tippfehlern. Und die Angst der Bürger dient letztlich genau der Implementierung derjenigen Einschnitte in ihre Rechte, die Wolf so kritisiert. Auch wirtschaftspolitische Aspekte blendet Wolf beim Thema Überwachung völlig aus, obwohl der sicherheitsindustrielle Komplex dabei in weiten Teilen der Welt schwer verdient.

... coming together............ 'circling-the-drain'...: Oligarchs Rule

... coming together............ 'circling-the-drain'...: Oligarchs Rule: " 'When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes..."

Der "deutsche Blick" ging nach Amerika (The "German Glance" came to America)

"Wer heute die Ära Bush als eine Phase finsterer Spionitis und bedrohlicher Einschränkung bürgerlicher Freiheiten kritisiert, der hat keine Ahnung von dem bleiernen Klima der Verdächtigung und Verleumdung, das sich im Zeichen des McCarthyismus auf Amerika gelegt hatte. Zu jener Zeit verließ Thomas Mann fluchtartig die Neue Welt, um sich in die Schweiz zurückzuziehen. Viele jüdische Intellektuelle wurden der Neigung zum Marxismus-Leninismus bezichtigt. Es kam in New York zu zahlreichen Selbstmorden inkriminierter "Liberaler", ein Wort, das - wie heute gelegentlich wieder - einen negativen Beigeschmack erhielt. Bei meinen Treffen mit unkonventionellen Kollegen in Bars oder Restaurants drehten sie sich immer wieder vorsichtig um. Sie überprüften, wer wohl am Nachbartisch zuhören könnte. Im Dritten Reich hatte man das den "deutschen Blick" genannt. Die Schnüffler des FBI waren oft an Kleidung und Statur zu erkennen."

Scholl-Latour, Peter: Koloss auf tönernen Füßen. Ullstein, 4. Auflage, Berlin 2007, S.166.

"Everybody criticizing today the Bush era as a time of sinister spionitis* and threatening restriction of citizen rights has no idea of the depressing atmosphere of suspicion and defamation in America under the banner of McCarthyism. At that time, Thomas Mann skipped the New World to back down in Switzerland. Many Jewish intellectuals had been accused of a tendency towards Marxism-Leninism. In New York, there was a considerable number of suicides of incriminated "liberals" - a word then receiving a negative flavor - like sometimes these days. When I met my unconventional friends in bars or restaurants, they used to turn around and look back cautiously. They were checking who at the next table would listen. In the Third Reich we called it the "German glance". One could detect the FBI snoopers in their clothing and build." [translation by base2014]

*Spionitis (German): the excessive (mutual) monitoring of citizens (and visitors) by citizens evoked by governmental fearmongering concerning an invisible enemy.

You might be under observation! (Hitler, Magda and Joseph Goebbels)