14th October 2010
A bold prediction about the future of the world 10 years from now
I have seen the evolution of the internet as a medium of communication on human liberty from feeble internet efforts by people like me in the late 1990s (with the India Policy Institute) and relatively more robust 'ground-based' efforts like the Centre for Civil Society, to a shift predominantly to the internet. This is a successful model and its results are already there to see (e.g. the Tea Party movement – whatever its policy limitations).
Ultimately ideas matter, and one doesn't need to sit personally with people to explain the ideas of liberty to them. The internet can do a pretty good job at that.
What has now happened that the great works of liberty which were earlier NOT AVAILABLE in the public libraries of socialist nations like India or China, or Muslim dictatorships like Iran, are now READILY available in every corner of the world. As books by Adam Smith, John Locke, von Mises, Rose Wilder Lane, Murray Rothbard, and many others become FREELY available, blocking liberty through censorship SIMPLY CANNOT WORK.
I therefore expect people across the world will SOON realise their sovereignty.
The influence of ideas spread through the internet is unstoppable. It has reached a point when even the greatest tyrant will have to bow before the force of individual freedom. China cannot control the forces that are bubbling below the surface nor can Iran or North Korea.
ALL IT TAKES TO OVERTHROW DICTATORSHIPS IS ONE PERSON WHO WANTS LIBERTY. These handful of powerfully motivated citizens of these countries will USE THE MIGHT OF THE PEN to overthrow tyranny.
BOLD (RASH?) PREDICTION
I know I'm being a bit foolish here, but I am more confident than ever about the powerful influence of the internet. I believe that the rate of expansion of liberty will quicken rapidly in the coming ten years. By 2020 I predict that China, Iran, and North Korea would have had peaceful revolutions and become democracies. The world will become a much safer place for everyone.
I believe that China with rising income levels will eventually become a democracy. But it won't happen peacefully or without some sort of catastrophic circumstances. No authority likes to give up power and if anything, Chinese censorship and control over the Internet has become even tighter.
No, I don't think it'll happen peacefully at all. Tough times ahead…
Dear Bhagwad
“Chinese reformers have used the opportunity to step up pressure on the government, with 21 retired officials and media chiefs signing an open letter to the country’s leaders demanding censorship be relaxed.” (see today’s news: http://bit.ly/d2vmCP).
There is hope. Not all political change is violent. We can help by writing about liberty and explaining its advantages.
Regards
Sanjeev
I share your optimism. The Chinese establishment that does not blink in front of Russia and America and that continues to march unchallanged over South Asia to establish interests in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean quivers every time a purple robed man with a gentle smile on his beaming face makes a move on the world stage. It is unbelievable how many miles of barbed wire and how many scores of police with batons and guns is required to secure the Chinese Embassy in Delhi from a handful of unarmed Tibetan protestors who might show up from time to time. No army of tyrants can keep the human spirit from manifesting itself forever.
NP Singh
Well said, Dr Singh
Despite my constant carping against India’s governance, and low levels of freedom, I’m VERY PROUD of the fact that the Dalai Lama is hosted by India.
That is why I say that India’s culture is one of freedom, and if only we can release it, India will become the world leader in EVERYTHING. I mean that. EVERYTHING. We must unshackle India and lead the world in freedom and non-violence.
Regards
Sanjeev
Can Revolution's ever be peaceful. It is like imaging "soft Power", when a power can never be soft. A generic definition of "Revolution" is
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. or,
a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
Am not quite convinced with the word "peaceful revolution"….
Secondly, Iran is already a democracy and China may have various shades of Democracy in ten years. I believe we all understand that, voting in elections is just one section of democracy and democracy can still apply in wider sense without the system of "voting".
Any good classical and contemporary authors you could recommend Sajeev on Democracy.
Sanjeev,
Although I appreciate your sentiments, I do not agree with them completely. Internet cannot change human psychology.
See USA today, it is a democracy, and the financial institutions are taking the happiness of millions of common folks, and the government is supporting the power players. Because the Americans voted, do they have more independence than Chinese.
China is communist, but within the last decade it has truned around, and become a challnger for the number one position as a country. Each democracy is focusing on critising, but no one is learning any lessons from them. India is still way behind, and on various parameters very low. Human rights, corruption, suicides, judiciary, harrassment, law, gender diversity, to name a few. In some China is doing better.
Democracy in most countries is in name only, with money and power enslaving most. I would recommend you read Gareth Morgan's book – Images of an Orgnaization. It explains how organization s have become more dominant forces than countries, and are metomorhically working like Soviet Union KGB.
An open view is required, to understand the pros and cons of each set up, rather than simply lashing out at a setup which is becoming more successful. An open mind is what I consider true liberty. Nothing else.
Sonia
Dear Sonia
Thanks for your thoughts. There have been many opponents of democracy in history, and it is very tempting to cite temporary examples of societies which have trampled human liberties for the sake of wealth, or to show defects in democracies.
Re: “Democracy in most countries is in name only”
– let me say that I am a FIRM and UNEQUIVOCAL believer in the value of democracy despite its many weaknesses. No other model of governance comes even close to the kind of society I would like to live in.
I have strongly criticised the way we operate Indian democracy in BFN, with detailed reasons. Setting up democracy and ensuring that it works reasonably well are not trivial matters, but India is still 100 times better off than China or Iran or N. Korea, despite its poverty. Equal freedom is the key word. I do not tolerate nor accept ANY one with a higher political status than the ordinary citizen. That is a basic requirements of democracy. It requires good leaders, above all. It requires people to take responsibility for their own country.
I also disagree that commercial organisations exercise control in genuine democracies. The people vote in these societies. Their vote counts. Yes, there can be a few efforts by a few companies, but these are nullified by people’s considered choices.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Ravi
Revolutions can be peaceful. The Glorious Revolution, the most powerful revolution of all, was peaceful. India’s independence movement was largely peaceful. The overthrow of communism in Poland was peaceful. Yes, people have to come to the streets. But revolutions can be peaceful. Even USSR fell ultimately to a peaceful revolution.
Re: “Iran is already a democracy” – I didn’t know that. Where did you get this information?
Regards
Sanjeev
Ravi
Re: “Any good classical and contemporary authors you could recommend Sajeev on Democracy.”
Ronand Dahl of Yale comes to mind as a critical analyst of democracy. Classical liberal philosphers were virtually evenly balanced between those who advocated democracy (Locke, Paine) and those who didn’t – or advocated a limited form (Burke, Mill). In a sense Nehru was a great advocate and practitioner of democracy.
Where most of these thinkers fail is at the level of design and mechanics. Because we can’t possibly have direct democracy, we must have representative democracy. That means we must build systems that ensure that good people enter politics. I have elaborated on this in BFN, and will do so at some length in DOF (there is a full chapter on democracy if you are interested).
Regards
Sanjeev