In a new article for RT today (that you can read here), I discuss how reform in Russia has generally come from above, often with the help of what one might call ‘enlightened bureaucrats’. Western politicians who imagine that dissident oppositionists will liberalize Russia are probably deluding themselves. If change comes, it will most likely come from within the system.
Anti-liberals among you will no doubt notice that my analysis contains a definite liberal bias in that it accepts the inevitability and necessity of liberalization. I stand by that. It would be absurd to say that liberalism is the ‘End of History’ – mankind will probably around for thousands more years, and there is no telling what social, economic and political systems and values will be appropriate in the year 3021, let alone 1,000,021. That said, within the context of our own times, liberalism offers many advantages – freer societies tend to be more vibrant, more economically successful, and more politically stable. This means that there are strong incentives for state leaders to liberalize. They needn’t be liberals, but if they want their states to be powerful, liberalization makes sense.
That said, certain economic and cultural preconditions are necessary for liberalism to take root and not to collapse in disaster. The fact that liberalism is in some abstract, generalized sense, desirable, doesn’t mean that one ought to demand it immediately in the particular circumstances of a given society. Don’t force it, in other words. Let societies discover its advantages for themselves.
Given this, it seems to me that if we wish others to liberalize, our focus ought to be on creating the preconditions I mentioned above and on making it easier for societies – and in particular their rulers, the ones who will enact change from above – to realize the benefits that come from liberalization. That means doing pretty much the opposite to what Western states have done in recent years. Rather than seeking to impoverish what we like to call ‘authoritarian’ states via sanctions, we should be doing what we can to help them prosper.
At this point, some might object that this strategy doesn’t work, pointing for instance to China. But that is a mistake. China does indeed retain an authoritarian political system, but it is undeniably a much more liberal place than it was 40 years ago, before it opened up to the world. Moreover, that liberalization has brought huge benefits to the Chinese. Compare China with North Korea – the one we have helped prosper, and the other we have helped impoverish. Which do you think is closer to having the necessary economic, social, and cultural preconditions for a liberal society? The answer, I think, is obvious.
Change doesn’t happen overnight. It strikes me as rather paradoxical that many so-called ‘liberals’ believe in the universality of their ideas, but at the same time think that they need to be forced on others. Surely, if these ideas are bound to succeed, all you need to do is wait for natural processes to do their thing.
In this respect, I am an unashamed liberal optimist unlike so many contemporary ‘liberals’, who have abandoned their faith in progress and like to regale us with predictions of doom and impending ‘tyranny’. I tend to the view that things will work out in the end, if we just butt out and let them run their natural course. Maybe I’m wrong. Only time will tell. It will be interesting to hear if you agree or disagree with me.
IRRUSSIANALITY 
typo: “mankind will probably be around”
What is “liberalism”? Is it individualism, individual “rights”?
“freer societies tend to be more vibrant, more economically successful”
Meh. Here perhaps the cause-effect is the opposite: richer societies tend to become more liberal. To someone struggling to pay his bills, who doesn’t have enough food, worrying about their “rights” seems absurd.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Globohomo
LikeLike
Dear Paul. Liberalism is a vague concept. Almost everyone understands something different. Is it what the USians call liberalism (What central Europe would call a social democracy?)? Or is it what the Germans define as liberalism? Which is something akin to the Democratic Party in the US. Is it the economic doctrine of free markets? Is it the broad concept of Western democracy?
What about countries in SEA such as Singapore? They are widely economically successful, and Singapore is extremely wealthy. Most Russians would trade for their country to be Singapore instead of Poland. Still, the individual has limited rights, laws are draconian, freedom of speech is highly curtailed, the state controls all media, and one cannot call the countries in the region democracies.
It strikes me as a very “western view” that all roads lead to liberal democracies, where reality is that most of the world lives in hybrid systems with weak institutions, a selective rule of law, and where the level of democracy and individual freedoms highly depends on the leadership in place. A case in point is Latin American “democracies” such as Brazil, Argentina, or Chile, to name a few, regularly ruled by strongmen who change the game’s rules to suit their objectives.
If we look at the historical situation in Russia, I find it likelier that it will adopt a system similar to Singapore or other southeast Asian economies with a certain taint of authoritarianism but with a stricter rule of law, which fosters investments and economic growth. We already see Russia shifting in this direction and climbing on the rankings of easiness to do business. Russia is placed 28 in 2020 vs. Ukraine in place 64.
Judging by the cultural and ethnic diversity, the enormous distances, and unstable neighborhoods in the Caucasus and Central Asia, it is hard to see Russia becoming the next Finland within this century.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The proponents of liberal societies believe that their societies are superior to other society models. It has nothing to do with a desire for others to live better
It shows no respect for other countries history or culture.
It’s a cover for prejudice against those who are not like you – dressed up as liberal values
What has liberalism led to over the last few decades?
Regime change and destruction
Plundering of societies deemed inferior
All in the name of spreading liberal values
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is exactly the argument: freedom from or freedom to, and who is in control of the machinery of politics and the media.
Can freedom to express yourself have any meaning to the 99.% in society who have simply no way to influence anything with their individual expression unless they actually sacrifice this individuality to act collectively?
Where the real influence is reserved for those who can afford to buy the newspapers, the journalists and the politicians who in their name then control the politics and maintain the existing power structures to their benefit alone.
Freedom to does not mean anything – the only thing I agree with the prof – if your mind is occupied with making sure you can keep a roof over your house, feed your family and actually have a job to go to.
Freedom to does not mean anything in societies that are demonstrably run by oligarchies that control the politicians that create laws that are only beneficial to those that wield the the real power though economic power.
As one said: capitalism is incompatible with democracy, when democracy really means the demos has the say and not the will of the few who own the means of production, be it industrial, financial or media.
The freedom from economic uncertainty, the freedom from worry bout your healthcare bills and being able to know to some certainty at least (of course, there are always natural disasters who can spoil the best intentions) that you will have a job and and the funds to be able to react to unforeseen circumstances actually give you the freedom to: think about the way society is structured and how it could be structured to the benefits of the majority and how to curb the inordinate influence of extraordinary economic power. To think how to prevent conflicts turning into wars and how to make your voice heard.
Liberalism has been really dead if it ever was alive in any meaningful sense in societies where the accumulation of capital necessarily leads to the accumulation of political power.
I am not sure how China exactly works, but in listening to discussions with Chinese scholars I get the impression that China – and maybe even Russia – are permitting the accumulation of capital but do away with the “liberal” nonsense that those who have the most also have the most say, a premise which seems to be baked in “liberal capitalism”.
I think that Putin should be congratulated to do more for real liberalism has he really meant it and follows through that: we permit you to make money as long as you stay out of politics.
Examples can also be observed in the Chines reaction to Mr. Ma and the oligarchs who stir the pot in Hong Kong with US foreign aid…
I wonder why that is that over 70% of Chinese think they live in a functioning democracy, while less than 50% think that of the USA?
LikeLike
I have an off topic question to the Prof: what is going on in Canada right know with the relationship between natives and non natives. Why does this come up again? We had in the 90′ a commission who acknowledged afaik that genocide had been committed by the State and its proxies the various Churches and their organizations involved in the residential School system, mainly however the Catholic Church.
The facts have been known for at least 20 years, and all the nastiness exposed by the victims. So – why does this whole sad story come up again? Now? Has the report been forgotten, had there been not some action taken?
I just don’t get it why the reaction as if something new had been discovered. What does the native community – as far as it exists as such – want?
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it be nice if people stopped throwing “-isms” around and just resolved to be smarter, fairer, and kinder about running their societies.
LikeLike
What I personally dislike about western liberals is their prescriptiveness
These people think that their values are the only right ones and anyone rejecting them is not fully human
Some western liberal are calling for a crusade to impose their vison on any and every society on the planet – just like their ancestors had crusades to impose Christianity on any other people by fire and sword
Societies have the right to develop at their own pace and will change and adapt as they see fit – forcing western liberal values on them through sanctions, bombs or putting people in power who are perceived as local collaborators never works
the world would be a much better place if westerners would concentrate on making things better a home
LikeLike
You make an excellent point
“…. the world would be a much better place if westerners would concentrate on making things better a home”
All this talk about liberal values covers the fact that societies are failing economic inequality is still prevalent.
Politicians hers in the UK don’t want ton discuss poverty, homelessness, health inequality and unemployment
The biggest tragedy in the past few decades is the death of class based politics – and the priority given to liberal identity politics
Boris Johnson was promoting this at the G7 – ignoring the economic and social problems exacerbated by the pandemic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a great point too. I never understood English politics that well, but I used to respect it, because it was overtly class-based: working class voted Labour, upper class voted Tories, etc. Very clear and understandable rules. English people, unlike Americans, never seemed to be particularly shy about discussing their role in the class pecking order.
Now, like Americans, they seem to deny that class is even a thing. Instead of being a worker or capitalist (or landowner, whatever), people are supposed to focus their total identity on their biological features, like which one of the ten or so different genders they belong to. As if we’re all just squirmy biological animals now, some amphibious type creatures with blinky eyes, obsessed by our own bodies. Instead of what we used to be, i.e., higher-level animals who organize ourselves into class-based societies in order to create wealth and value.
Whatever happened to “Man the paragon of animals” you gotta ask…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Everything one calls an ‘ism is a vague and rough approximation to something. But in the case of liberalism it is worse than that.
You may refer to rule of law, safety from persecution and right to express views of the society you live in. In that case it is clear that it (more or less) comes with prosperity, cf Charles Tilly: Capital, coercion and European states. Either a state has money and can buy its way forward. Or it hasn’t and must use force, not least to protect itself from “internal enemies”.
And you may refer to the right to make commerce in anything you please. In this case, as has been stated by Bas van Bavel: The invisible hand?, it may lead to impoverishment as soon as it includes the means of production rather than the products themselves. The more commerce we have in consumer articles, the freer the society will be. But the more we have of commerce in labour, land and capital, the more society is ruled by an aristocracy of moneyed people. And the less liberalism of the first kind we will have.
The whole thing is made even trickier if we consider geographical inequality. If a poor country is unable to protect itself from competition from richer and more developed countries, the poorer it will be, and the more force and violence its state must use, according to the thesis in pt 1. The whole business of developmental economy circulates about this theme.
LikeLike