Like a ball of fire
Since the Brexit vote and the election of Trump, a sort of high-voltage electroshock has shot through political science and major global think-tanks like a fireball. The collapse of liberal-democratic ideas, policies and parties, nationally and internationally, has been the most visible and most discussed effect of these events. Yet the erosion of consensus around the liberal narrative has more interesting causes than effects, causes which, sadly, have remained rather sidelined in public discussion. The Israeli scholar Yuval Noah Harari – a star who rivals James Patterson in the bookstore – has identified four of them: the social consequences on Western economies of the growth of China which has benefited most from the liberal global order, the technological revolution, biotechnology and climate change.
As Harari points out, this is certainly not the first crisis of the liberal scheme and perhaps not even the deepest. In general, the liberal scheme has shown a capacity for adaptation that no other political system or political theory has been able to develop over time. It is precisely the genetics of the liberal thinking organism that could rewrite itself to adapt to the evolution needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Dozens of books have come out in English lately, not to mention articles and essays that have tackled and discussed the theme of the crisis of liberalism and its prospects. In Italy, where the liberal tradition is very weak and dispersed and where there is no longer an independent liberal thought, faint echoes have reached us of this great discussion on the crisis of the liberal narrative and its possible developments. It is a pity because this discussion goes far beyond the narrow dress of liberalism to embrace the configuration of political systems and relations between countries in the immediate future so far governed by what is called the "global liberal order" which in the lines that follow historian Hararai describes very well.
A book in Italian on liberal storytelling
With the intention of partially repairing this gap, a book has been in the library for a few days, The autumn of liberal democracy, The liberal narrative from Stuart Mill atEconomist published by goWare, which traces the evolution of the liberal idea of society through the highly updated enucleation of the crucial points of the thought of the protagonists of the liberal narrative: John Stuart Mill, Tocqueville, the feminist Harriet Taylor Mill, the exponents of the Austrian, Keynes, Hayek, Popper, Schumpeter, Berlin, Rawls, Nozick up to the recent theses on the rebirth of liberalism by the most important liberal think-tank in the world, the magazine "The Economist". Furthermore, through the contributions of Harari himself, the emerging philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah and an old pillar of liberalism such as Michael Ignatieff, the themes underlying the debate on the reasons for the crisis of liberalism are discussed: identity, meritocracy, technology and immigration. An essay by one of the major scholars of historical liberalism, Girolamo Cotroneo, speaks of the weight that the two pillars of Hercules of liberal doctrine, justice and freedom, have historically related to each other in the thought and action of the major currents of thought this movement.
Returning to current events, we are pleased to offer our readers one of the most lucid interventions by Yuval Noah Harari who questions the chances and characteristics of a new global liberal order which, like a phoenix, and as has already happened in the past, it can rise from its own ashes. It is a truly original contribution proposed by one of the most brilliant minds of our time. Enjoy the reading!
An order higher than the alternatives
For several generations, the world has been governed by what we now call "the global liberal order". Behind these sublime words is the idea that all human beings share fundamental experiences, values and interests and that no human group is intrinsically superior to the others. Cooperation is therefore more necessary than conflict for human development. All people should work together to protect common values and advance common interests. And the best way to foster that cooperation is to facilitate the movement of ideas, goods, money and people around the world.
While the liberal global order has many flaws and many problems, it has proved superior to all possible alternatives. The liberal world of the early 21st century is more prosperous, healthy and peaceful than ever before. For the first time in human history, hunger kills fewer people than obesity; plagues kill fewer people than old age; and violence kills fewer people than accidents. When I was six months old, I didn't die in an epidemic thanks to remedies discovered by foreign scientists in distant lands. When I was three, I didn't starve thanks to wheat grown by foreign farmers thousands of miles away. And when I was eleven I wasn't obliterated by a nuclear war, thanks to the agreements signed by foreign leaders on the other side of the planet. If you think we should go back to a pre-liberal golden age, please name the year in which humanity was in better shape than at the beginning of the 21st century. Was it 1918? 1718? or 1218?
Despite this, people all over the world are losing faith in the liberal order. Nationalist and religious views that privilege one human group over all others are back in vogue. Governments are increasingly restricting the flow of ideas, goods, money and people. Walls are popping up everywhere, both on Earth and in cyberspace. Immigration is banned, tariffs are in fashion.
There are alternative?
If the liberal order is collapsing, what new kind of global order could replace it? So far, those who challenge the liberal order do so primarily at the level of individual nations. They have many ideas about how to advance the interests of their particular country, but they lack a definite and sustainable vision of how the world as a whole should work. For example, Russian nationalism may be a reasonable guide for running Russia's affairs, but Russian nationalism has no plan for the rest of humanity. Unless, of course, nationalism turns into imperialism and drives a power to conquer and rule the whole world. A century ago, many nationalist movements harbored imperialist fantasies. Today's nationalists, whether in Russia, Turkey, Italy or China, so far refrain from advocating for the conquest of the planet. The world will then be divided into distinct nation states, each with its own identity and sacred traditions.
Instead of forcibly establishing a global empire, some nationalists such as Steve Bannon, Viktor Orban, the Northern League in Italy and the British Brexitari dream of a peaceful "Nationalist International". They argue that all nations face the same enemies. They argue that globalism, multiculturalism and immigration are threatening to destroy national traditions and identities. Therefore nationalists around the world should make common cause in opposing these global forces. Hungarians, Italians, Turks and Israelis should build walls, erect fences and slow down the movement of people, goods, money and ideas across national borders.
The world will therefore be divided into distinct nation states, each with its own identity and respective traditions. Based on mutual respect for these different identities, all nation-states could cooperate and relate peacefully. Hungary will be Hungarian, Turkey will be Turkish, Israel will be Israeli and everyone will know who they are and what their place is in the world. It will be a world without immigration, without universal values, without multiculturalism and without a global elite, but with peaceful international relations and some trade. In a word, the "Nationalist International" imagines the world as a network of walled fortresses but in good mutual relations.
The key problem with this network of walled fortresses is that each national fortress aims for a little more land, security and prosperity than its neighbours.
There are no alternatives!
Many people might think this is a pretty reasonable view. Why is it not a viable alternative to the liberal order? Two things should be said about this. First, it's still a relatively liberal view. It is based on the assumption that no human group is superior to all others, that no nation should dominate its peers, and that international cooperation is better than conflict. Indeed, liberalism and nationalism were originally closely aligned with each other. Liberal nationalists of the 19th century, such as Giuseppe Garibaldi and Giuseppe Mazzini in Italy and Adam Mickiewicz in Poland, dreamed of a liberal international order of peacefully coexisting nations.
The second thing to note about this friendly fortress vision is that it has already been tried and failed spectacularly. All attempts to divide the world into well-defined nations have so far led to war and genocide. When the heirs of Garibaldi, Mazzini and Mickiewicz managed to overthrow the multi-ethnic Habsburg empire, it proved impossible to find a clear line dividing Italians from Slovenes or Poles from Ukrainians.
This set the stage for World War II. The key problem with the fortress network is that each national fortress tends to want to expand at the expense of its neighbors, and without the intervention of universal values and global organizations, rival fortresses cannot agree on any common rules. Walled fortresses are rarely on friendly terms.
But who happens to live in a dominant fortress, such as America or Russia, what comes of this policy? Some nationalists indeed adopt an extreme isolationist position. They believe neither in a global empire nor in a global network of fortresses. Rather, they deny the need for any global order. “Our fortress should raise its drawbridges – they say – and the rest of the world can go to hell. We should reject foreign people, foreign ideas and foreign goods, and as long as our walls are strong and our guards loyal, who cares what happens to foreigners?”
The world is a unity
Such extreme isolationism, however, is completely divorced from economic realities. Without a global trade network, all existing national economies would collapse, including that of North Korea. Many countries will not even be able to feed themselves without imports and the prices of almost all products will skyrocket. The made in China shirt I'm wearing cost me $5. If it was made by Israeli workers from Israeli-grown cotton using Israeli machines powered by non-existent Israeli oil, it could have cost ten times as much. Nationalist leaders from Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin may therefore think about downsizing the global trade network, but no one seriously thinks about removing their country completely from that network. And, ergo, we cannot have a global trading network without a global order that sets the rules of the game.
More importantly, whether people like it or not, humanity today faces three common problems that disregard all national borders and can only be solved through global cooperation. They are nuclear war, climate change and technological upheavals. You cannot build a wall against nuclear winter or global warming, and no nation can meet the challenge of artificial intelligence (AI) or bioengineering alone. It will not be enough if only the European Union bans the production of killer robots or only America bans genetic engineering. Because of the immense potential of such disruptive technologies, if even one country decides to pursue these high-risk, high-return paths, other countries will be forced to follow the same path for fear of falling behind.
An AI-based arms race or a biotech arms race produces the most nefarious outcome. Whoever wins that race, all of humanity will lose. Because in an arms race, all the rules will break down. Let's think, for example, what it might mean to start conducting genetic engineering experiments on children. Every country will say: “We don't want to conduct such experiments, we are good guys. But how do we know that our rivals aren't already doing it? We cannot afford to fall behind. So we have to do it before them."
Similarly, consider the development of automatic weapons systems, which can decide for themselves whether to shoot or kill people. Again, every country will say, “This is a very dangerous technology, and it should be regulated carefully. But we don't trust our rivals to regulate it, so we need to develop this technology first."
To survive and thrive in the 21st century, mankind needs effective global cooperation and so far the only viable blueprint for such cooperation is offered by liberalism.
The only thing that can prevent such a destructive arms race is increased trust between countries. This is not an impossible thing. If today the Germans promise the French: “Believe us, we are not developing killer robots in a secret laboratory in the Bavarian Alps”, the French will probably believe the Germans, despite the terrible history of relations between these two countries. We need to build such trust globally. We have to reach a point where Americans and Chinese can trust each other like the French and the Germans do.
Similarly, we need to create a global safety net to protect humans from the economic shocks that AI could cause. Automation will create immense new wealth concentrated in high-tech hubs like Silicon Valley, while the worst effects will be felt in developing countries whose economies depend on cheap manual labor. There will be more jobs for software engineers in California, but fewer jobs for Mexican factory workers and truck drivers. We have a global economy, but politics is still very national. Unless we find global solutions to the upheaval caused by AI, entire countries could collapse and the resulting chaos, violence and waves of immigration will destabilize the entire world.
This is the right perspective to look at recent developments like Brexit. By itself, Brexit is not necessarily a bad idea. But is Brexit really the issue that Britain and the European Union should be dealing with right now? How does Brexit help prevent nuclear war? How does Brexit help prevent climate change? How does Brexit help regulate artificial intelligence and bioengineering? Instead of helping, Brexit makes it more difficult to solve all these problems. Every minute Britain and the EU spend on Brexit is one minute less they spend preventing climate change and regulating artificial intelligence.
To survive and thrive in the 21st century, humankind needs effective global cooperation, and so far the only viable blueprint for such cooperation is offered by liberalism. However, governments around the world are undermining the foundations of the liberal order and the world is turning into a network of fortresses. The first to feel the impact are the weakest members of humanity, who find themselves without a fortress willing to protect them: refugees, illegal migrants, persecuted minorities. But if the walls continue to rise, eventually all of humanity will feel the grip of the garrote.
Fromthe dispersion of identity to the identity-world
In the 21st century we are faced with global problems that even great nations cannot solve on their own, so it makes sense to change at least some of our loyalties to a national identity.
But this is not our inescapable destiny. We can still advance a truly global agenda, moving beyond simple trade agreements and expressing the attachment that all human beings should to their species and their planet. Identities are forged by crises. Humanity today faces the triple crisis of nuclear war, climate change and technological upheaval. Unless humans realize their shared plight and make common cause, it is unlikely they will survive this crisis. Just as in the previous century, all-out economic warfare built “one nation” out of many disparate groups, so in the 21st century the global existential crisis could give birth to a human collective overcoming the dispersion of nations.
Creating this collective global identity need not prove mission impossible. After all, feeling true to humanity and planet Earth is no inherently more difficult than feeling true to a nation that includes millions of strangers who have never met and numerous provinces who have ever visited. Contrary to common sense, there is nothing natural about nationalism. It is not rooted in human biology or psychology. It's true, humans are social animals to the core, with group instincts imprinted in our genes. However, for millions of years Homo sapiens and his hominid ancestors lived in small, tightly packed communities numbering no more than a few dozen people. Humans therefore easily develop their loyalty to small groups such as families, tribes, and villages, where everyone knows each other directly. But it's not natural for humans to be sympathetic to millions of strangers.
Mass gatherings have only appeared in the last few millennia – yesterday morning on the evolutionary calendar – and humans have banded together to tackle far-reaching problems that small tribes could not solve alone. In the 21st century we face such global problems that it makes sense to change at least some of the attitude towards a global identity. Humans naturally feel close to the 100 relatives and friends they know intimately. It has been extremely difficult to make humans feel close to the 100 million strangers they have never met. But nationalism has managed to do exactly that. Now all we have to do is make humans feel like they're close to 8 billion strangers they've never met.
It is true that to forge collective identities, humans always need a common enemy to threaten them. But now we have the three big enemies I've already talked about. If you can get the Americans to close ranks by shouting "Mexicans will take your job!" Perhaps Americans and Mexicans could be persuaded to make a common cause by shouting “the robots will take your job!”.
This does not mean that humans will completely abandon their cultural, religious or national identities. They can be loyal to their own and, at the same time, to different identities – to family, to village, to profession, to country, and even to the planet and the entire human species.
It is true that sometimes different visions can collide and therefore it is not easy to decide what to do. But who said life is easy? Life is difficult. Dealing with it is difficult. Sometimes we put work before family, sometimes family before work. Similarly, sometimes we must put the national interest first, but there are occasions when we must put the global interests of humanity first.
Questions to politicians
What does all this mean in practice? Well, when the next election comes and politicians ask you to vote for them, you need to ask these politicians four questions:
1) What actions do you take to reduce the risks of nuclear war?
2) What actions will you take to reduce the risks of climate change?
3) What actions do you have in mind to regulate disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence and bioengineering?
4) And finally, how do you see the world of 2040? What is your worst case scenario and what is your vision for the best case scenario?
If some politicians don't understand these questions, or if they constantly talk about the past without being able to formulate a meaningful vision for the future, don't vote for these politicians.
