The previous blog drew attention to the shortcomings of the G8 leaders currently meeting in Heiligendamm. It seems germane to ask how come it is those particular eight people who get to carve up the world between them.
How many Russians think that, of all their 141 million people, Vladimir Putin is the best man for the job? How many Americans think that of George Bush? Or Brits of Tony Blair? Blair and Bush's approval ratings are way down. Shinzo Abe of Japan isn't doing much better. Putin and Angela Merkel of Germany are riding high, and Nicolas Sarkozy has only just been elected, so his ratings are presumably still OK (though those that don't like him tend to be strongly against). Stephen Harper of Canada is also doing OK, but he leads a minority government, and the ratings reflect this. Romano Prodi is struggling a bit. It is also relevant to consider the popularity of these seven men and one woman in countries other than their own. Six of them are generally of little interest beyond their own borders, but Bush is hugely unpopular across the Muslim world and in South America, and only a little less so in Europe, while Blair is popular in the USA but also enjoys the hatred of many Muslims.
How does it come about, then, that these eight, none universally liked or trusted and some widely disliked and distrusted, come to rule the world? All are of course elected by their respective countrymen (and women); though Vladimir Putin is showing worrying signs of contempt for the democratic process, there is no doubt that his election represented the choice of the Russian people. But their choice was between a small number of largely self-selected candidates - as was the case for each of Mr Putin's G8 colleagues.
Is there a better way than democracy to pick our leaders? Nobody has yet come up with one, but democracy is so deeply, systemically flawed that it is hard to believe that human ingenuity cannot improve on it. The people who stand for election are, in general, those hungry for power - precisely the people you don't want to give it to. Once they are in power, most of their attention is focussed on staying there. That leads to short-termism, the most glaring example of which is the lamentable slowness to even notice, let alone tackle, global warming. Then there is the problem of funding - how, realistically, can we divorce donations to political parties from the decisions the leaders of those parties subsequently take?
I don't have any answers to these questions, merely frustration that the political process worldwide - or at least in those parts of the world where politicians are elected - is so snarled by the weaknesses of the system. How much better it would be if countries could be run by the people best qualified to do so, rather than the ones who most want to do so and happen to be good at speechmaking and soundbites.
Comments