A must-read article

If there is any article anyone interested in international affairs should read, it was recently written by The Economist magazine in their annual "The World" edition ("The World in 2007," identifiable by the giant picture of a pointing George Bush on the cover). The article is about what it perceives as the declining role of the nation-state in world affairs. See "The Authority Deficit," in the "Leaders" section, by The Economist foreign editor Peter David.

The article points out that many states have less authority over their citizens than before. This makes sense, because it seems likely that tools like the internet and a truly global economy takes some of the umph - that is, a monopoly on information - out of many governments and gives that power to the individual. Governments, many of which naturally gravitate towards power-consolidation, are simply losing the battle to dictate the direction and orientation of its citizens.

What fills this this void? The article insinuates that NGOs, the UN and Islam. Islam, the article discusses, fills this void by allowing for a truly individual religion that gives Muslims and would-be Muslims the ability to read and interpret the Koran as they see fit, "Commendably democratic - and dangerous," the author comments. The author sums it up like this: "[This system] lives every Tom, Dick and Osama with access to the web and a Koran free to interpret the truth path as he pleases." Like in Iraq, a powerful, if not brutal, government can discourage this mobbish form of democracy (which, mind you, could take place anywhere and with any idea, Islam just happens to be the fad); once the dictator falls however, the winds of chaos may take over. I certainly agree.

The author does not recommend giving the state more power, because it will hurt the free movement of "ideas, capital and labour." True, indeed. However, as a recommendation the author settles on strengthening international institutions. The author may be right, there is always that possibility and the idea and motions of the UN is certainly a good one. But when is the UN actually able to act on critical issues of the times? By the author's admission, the UN has ordered Iran to stop enriching uranium (it hasn't), North Korea to give up its nuclear bomb (nope), the Sudanese government to stop killing its own civilians in Darfur (no), and Hizbullah to disband (hasn't happened yet. . .). The author has some interesting and thoughtful points - how relevant can the UN be when Russia, a has-been third-world country with a backwards economy, has a veto power but Brazil and India don't? Yet will the edition of these countries and more money, i.e. the "strengthening" of the UN, actually make it stronger? Until states regularly send massive amounts of troops to enforce resolutions, dreamers can keep dreaming of a reality about as plausible of winning the Mega Millions lottery seven times in a row. Unfortunately for humanity, states don't have much of an incentive to spend their soldiers to the middle of Africa.

Yet maybe the author is concerned about the wrong things. I'm inclined to say the author is (very intellectually) engaging in the pessimism of the times, worried about terror and the glorification of Islamic terrorism (or, as the thoughtful Fox News Channel calls it, "Islamofacisism"), and concerned about a too-powerful America that may possibly start a decline. Yes, states are losing power in the sense of control over their citizens via information. But their citizens are also growing wiser and more savvy with this information, making them better-equip to solve tomorrow's problems and governments will adapt, accordingly. It is, remember, those same citizens who eventually will be part of the government. So maybe we don't have to worry about the "decline" of the power of the government, but maybe we should talk about how the government needs to evolve to better suit today's needs. It's my own prediction that the United States probably isn't going anywhere any time soon, Osama will be a fad, and that in 15 years something new will be news that journalists will struggle to understand.

It seems that the images of AK-47 wielding terrorists in Iraq have gotten the better hand of many people, including some of the smart authors at The Economist. Is the power of the state really waning? Maybe, but I doubt it. The state has remained a powerful tool entity since its creation, and I doubt the internet and RPGs are going to destroy it. Instead, they will simply make it evolve.