7.1 A Missionary in Economics?

Not all regions in the world have reached the same level of development. The question therefore arises: how should a successful democracy deal with autocratic nations?

First of all, it should be noted that it is not for us to impose our system on other nations. Even though we know that freedom, liberalism and democracy are prerequisites for success, it is not our place to go forth with missionary zeal encouraging other nations to adopt our systems. All are responsible for their own happiness—not just every person but every country. However, there are limits to acceptable autocratic behavior and when these are exceeded, intervention is necessary.

Wherever the market economy does not work, it is up to each country to decide whether or not to leave things as they are even if this means it must accept a lower level of prosperity. Often such countries claim that strong centralized leadership is needed in order to catch up. However, this demands that an autocrat be honest and work for the common good. Delegation of power requires trust. Trustworthy autocrats are difficult to find. They generally put their own power in the forefront and do everything they can to maintain it. They do not work to advance their countries—only themselves.

7.2 The Hierarchical System

Hierarchical systems can be found everywhere in nature. In herds there is a dominant or lead animal, i.e. a head bull, a wolf as leader of the pack, or a monkey as leader of the troop. They are hierarchical creatures used to authority. Obviously, this structure prevailed throughout evolution by ensuring that survival within the herd is easier than if each individual animal only looks out for itself. Herds would probably fall apart and cease to exist without this dominant or lead animal. Additionally, hierarchical systems satisfy the fight and dominate instinct, because the herd leadership position must be won, at times through very aggressive fights. In his best-selling book, The Selfish Gene,Footnote 1 Richard Dawkins, as the title suggests, describes genes as selfish and points out that this has been so since the beginning of evolution. Genes are selfish and they can exhibit this selfishness without evidencing any type of intelligence.

Humans, on the cutting edge of evolution, are also hierarchical and have taken on hierarchical leadership structures. Even groups of young people have leaders. Therefore, when autocrats claim that goals can be more efficiently reached through centralized leadership, it sounds credible.

Hierarchies appear in all parts of society. Football teams need a captain in order to win; armies need hierarchical structures in order to function well; even companies operating in the market economies of developed countries need strong central leadership as well as democratic leadership aspects to be successful. Therefore, it could be claimed that countries also need autocratic leadership in order to be successful.

Humans have always lived in hierarchical structures with emperors, kings, or dictators at the top. It doesn’t matter how the leader came to power, whether through birth (inherited) or through a power struggle. It only matters that they are recognized as a leader within the value system of those being ruled. Obviously, this type of organizational structure is in our genetic makeup.

It is only within the last few centuries that hierarchical orders have come into question, particularly in Europe. Human rights demanded that everyone be treated equally; in other words, no one was superior to another person. For everyone living together to feel at ease, the rules require that everyone has a say. It is only when a group attempts to successfully achieve something together that a leader and—by extension—a hierarchy become necessary. And even in this case, there is a growing trend toward an egalitarian system. Bosses are no longer “always right”. They must listen to the opinions of their subordinates or experts, weigh these and then make their decisions. Companies at either extreme—those run strictly democratically and those run as centralist authoritarian enterprises—cannot be successful. A combination of both is needed and the combination will depend on the needs and education of those concerned.

Questions then arise: is evolution continuing and are the people in democratic regions experiencing a period of growth? Did these people experience an evolutionary surge which has made them more altruistic and led them away from hierarchical orders?

At any rate one thing is clear: regions with democracies and human rights have more success economically than societies led by autocrats. And they are further along in their development. Wherever people accept an authoritarian regime (a king, a dictator) as a matter of course, the free market economy suffers. Such regions lag behind in development when compared to constitutional democracies. This can be seen in Asia where democratic countries (Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) are more successful in per capita income than China. The trend everywhere is from prosperity to well-being (see Sect. 2.4).

7.3 Limits for Autocrats

Autocracies always lag behind. But that is not a reason to intervene. Each country must decide for itself whether it is doing well under an autocratic ruler or if that ruler should be ousted. However, there are situations that justify intervention: for example, when such a leader is under pressure and begins to stage situations that they believe will unite the people in their favor, allowing them to stay on top.

If an autocratic ruler seeks foreign policy confrontations or even starts a war, democracies must respond harshly. They haven’t interfered in the autocratic system in the past but may now demand that the autocracy refrain from interfering in other countries. This requires that highly developed countries maintain their military power. It also requires that they not waste time by continually insisting that “we have to talk”. And it requires boundaries, which when compromised, are defended without compromise.

When theocracies wage war abroad, it is difficult to respond to their actions. When autocracies wage a propaganda war abroad in order to influence elections and destabilize the population there, and when they do not flinch at using their secret service agents to poison their opponents (Russia in England, North Korea in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia in Turkey), or to murder (Germany), they must be censured. Finally, when autocrats occupy foreign territory (Russia in Crimea, China in the South China Sea, Turkey in the Mediterranean), they must be confronted. It is regrettable and almost irresponsible that as an aftereffect of World War II, Europeans are no longer willing to use their authority to oppose such offenders and prefer to simply “talk”. Rather than create an organization that can respond to attacks led by autocrats, they leave all decisive responses to the Americans. Demanding reciprocity with regards to religious tolerance (churches in Saudi Arabia) or with regards to economic freedom, freedom to own property, copyright, etc. is one of the obvious rules of engagement.

A distinction must be made when autocrats disregard basic rights. If it is a matter of basic rights not being allowed within the system (freedom of trade, the right to own property), it is difficult to intervene, and it would be difficult to justify. These countries must decide for themselves what is important for them. However, we can assume that young people all over the world are attracted to and inspired by the freedoms and rights experienced in democratic countries and will be motivated to demand the same system in their own countries.

If, however, individual rights are being violated, and this violation is punishable by law (injury to life and limb), then our conscience demands that we intervene. For instance, accusations of torture must be investigated, whether they are accusations in Turkey or Iran, prison camps in Russia, or “re-education” camps in China. In particular, we cannot ignore reports of concentration camps in the Chinese province of Xinjiang, where apparently over one million prisoners of different faiths are being held.

The International Criminal Court plays an important role in this respect.

Barriers to intervention are much lower in countries that are close to us because we share similar values (often belonging to organizations such as NATO or the European Union). In this regard, human rights as well as conditions for “good governance” (separation of powers, no corruption, see Chap. 12) must be maintained without compromise. Here again, it is important not only that we talk about these principles; they must also be enforced. It is a shame that continental European countries tend to “talk” more in this respect. The English, with their uncompromising approach, would be important for Europe. For example, they investigated a poisoning in Britain by the Russian Secret Service and published the results of their investigation without any consideration of the Russian government.