The world divided, among other aspects, by the diversity in the way of governing it. For the generality, the Western bloc, led by the US, the European Union (28 or more countries seem to be part of it), China and finally Russia, Vladimir Putin’s, which he manages as his property. In the absence of homogeneity reasons of a political nature are not absent.
Indeed, opinions abound regarding important business agreements with money, monsters at the sacrifice of sovereignty, for the sake of the need for integration fueled by economic development and military domination. These are budgets higher than those of the countries themselves. We sacrifice sovereign power, a derivation that is a dream that is absolute, rather nourished by a healthy relativity for the sake of well-being, through: 1. The generation of employment, 2. Sources of wealth, 3. Expansion of economies, 4. Cultural reciprocities and 5. Rules of healthy migratory practices. In the context, democracy as a political system is at stake. And this is what scholars reveal: 1.
One of the questions raised is to what extent these assessments lead to affirm, as in fact is done, benefit authoritarian regimes, such as China, or “paper democracies” that abound in Latin America. “The Democracy Índex”, “The Economist”, states that “democratization fell back in 2021, its most serious decline since 2010. Authoritarian regimes gained ground. The questions, regarding comparisons between liberal and authoritarian regimes, particularly that of China, whose achievements are praised. The other, authoritarian, that of the Soviet Union that exploded with Michael Gorbachev’s two words “Glasnost and Perestroika”, today “the Russia of Putin’s belonging” has caused rather discomfort, including the war it maintains with Ukraine.
The sources reveal the differences between China and Russia to elucidate the progress of one and the deterioration of the other: 1. The so-called “closed communism” at the end of the USSR had ruled for 74 years, in China 29, 2. With Mao the People’s Republic of China was lucky enough to look abroad in search of a liberal economic model, which led to a “graduality” that has favored its economy with a strong public power and restricted freedom, if not non-existent, for the people. and 3. It is often said that China began its reform through economics and Russia, instead, through politics. Also, that the Chinese do not have the problem of national identity, like the Russians, derived from the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of new states. Today they are, therefore, two different and even opposite countries.
The world is definitely not static. On the contrary, dynamic. Of course, it is not that of antiquity, but neither is that of the expectations of modernity. Pragmatism dominates. Individualism accompanies him. The comparsa is, therefore, between several, the fight for hope, a longing. Collectivization, utopian. Justice on the benches, perverse. The social questionable and questioned. What is the route? The robe of uncertainty hides a sincere answer.
Likewise, assessments are offered, unfortunately, far from optimism, such as those of Jonathan Wolf, who asks: How should political power be distributed and what freedoms should citizens enjoy? And the serious thing is that he does not get an answer. And the difficulty is serious, since it is very remote that each individual votes in favor of the common good and not for the benefit of his own interests. The intelligentsia rarely fails to be unanimous, another problem. In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Robert Nozic, a believer in the “minimal State”, limited to the protection of people against violence, theft and fraud. A more extensive one would violate the rights of citizens. Confusion undoubtedly exists regarding who we are and what the world is to be. The last, it seems that he still wants to shout the validity of the already old idea that “the proletariat seized power, otherwise, a lazy and unilateral legislation would offer palliatives to misery.” So he left it written, we do not know if a sane or crazy named John Reed in “Ten Days that shook the world.” By the way, Reed was born in the US, studied at Harvard, but his remains rest on the walls of the Kremlin.
The passages related to the confusion that reigns in the world lead us to wonder, consequently, about “political authoritarianism with economic freedom”, but also about “elected authority and a free market”. The world, eager for answers.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
