Since the start of the 21st century much debate has been centered on various social and political crises, such as the spread of radical Islam, the rise of populism and now, the resurgence of violent white nationalism. All these trends feed into a broader crisis of governability that has been gathering momentum over the past two decades. As Ukraine holds its presidential election with trust in government at a stunningly low of 8 percent, it should be careful lest it too becomes ungovernable.
The fragile state of governability first became apparent when George W. Bush invaded Iraq and ousted its brutal dictator Saddam Hussein. Bush’s neocon advisors believed that Iraq was ready for Western-style democracy. They were confident that they would duplicate in the Middle East what had been achieved in Western Europe and Japan after World War II and, to an extent, in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Instead, the collapse of the Hussein regime opened a can of worms. Iraq proved ungovernable and even now, 16 years later, the presence of US troops is needed to keep sectarian violence under wraps.
The Arab Spring has similarly led to the failure of government in Libya, Syria and Yemen. There is no guarantee that Algeria will not follow in their footsteps, and even though a kind of status quo has been reestablished in Egypt, this pivotal regional player remains in many ways on edge.
It may be argued that the Middle East has always been a cauldron of instability, and that the countries that have become failed states are, for the most part, riven with deep sectarian and ethnic divisions.
Not so Central American nations, however. Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala have become unlivable, as traditional institutions of government have been shattered and effectively replaced by criminal gangs. People have been forced to make a long and perilous trek north, animated by the increasingly uncertain hope of finding asylum in the United States.
Venezuela is sliding down along the same path. Apparently, Nicolás Maduro and his entourage, including top military brass, are heavily involved in cocaine trafficking in league with Russian organized crime and government figures. Besides this “official” criminal gang there are other gangs thriving in the country’s economic crisis and extending their reach. It’s highly doubtful that once Maduro is expelled Venezuela will become a democracy or even a military dictatorship. A failed state is more likely.
In Brazil, the rise of Jair Bolsonaro, the authoritarian Donald Trump of the Tropics, may be a prelude to troubles in this pivotal South American nation, as well.
Russia’s future after Vladimir Putin also looks grim. He’s been in power for twenty years, or more than two thirds of Russia’s post-Soviet history. On the one hand, he has presided over Brezhnev-style stagnation while on the other he has been systematically dismantling institutions of state, replacing them with mafia structures. His entire “vertical of power” is a system of officially sanctioned kleptocracy. Half of the problem is that bureaucrats at all levels have been stealing everything of value: Putin and his entourage in the billions, middle-level bureaucrats in the hundreds of millions – and so on, down to the lowest rungs of officialdom. But the other half is that the country’s governing institutions have been dismantled.
People are getting fed-up while a new generation of thugs is growing up, eager for their slice of the pie. Back in the late 1990s many observers predicted that the fall of communism could trigger a nationwide bloodbath. Back then Soviet institutions were still strong and they held, but this may not be the case after the fall of Putinism.
If you think that ungovernability plagued only less developed countries or mafia states, take a look at the U.K. Sure, it’s easy to blame the country’s Brexit tragicomedy on the incompetent governing class, but in truth what politicians are doing only reflects the will of the British people: those who voted to leave the EU without either an understanding of what it entails or a plan to address the issues, and also those who stayed at home or decided to cast a protest vote.
Regardless of what happens next, a large portion of the electorate will be bitterly disappointed. The U.K. political system will now be deadlocked for years, with all sides hurling recriminations at each other.
There is apparently a possibility of domestic unrest, as well, for which the Ministry of Defense is preparing by setting up a command post in a nuclear bunker.
The situation in the United States is even more dire. It is realistic to suppose that had Hillary Clinton won in 2016, the United States would have already been in a state of anarchy, with Donald Trump holding daily rallies claiming, without an iota of evidence, that the election was stolen and his fascist mob baying “Lock her up!”
Even having won, Trump has encouraged white supremacists with his dog whistling and has riled up his followers with direct calls for violent resistance to his critics. People in his entourage have talked darkly of a civil war against the deep state – treasonous talk which has had no consequences for their wagging tongues.
America’s two political parties illustrate two ugly facets of ungovernability. The Republicans present an example of surrender to mob rule: they’re afraid to contradict Trump lest they are defeated at the ballot box by Trump loyalists. The Democrats, meanwhile, have become the laughingstock of the world by fielding dozens of presidential candidates for the 2020 election, revealing a fragmented, leaderless and, ultimately, rudderless nation.
For yet another version of a potentially ungovernable advanced democracy take a look at France and the gilets jaunes movement. The government was quick to surrender to the mob, but the mob was merely inspired to engage in more rioting.
Why ungovernability is all of a sudden such a threat to society? There is of course the pressure of unsustainable population growth combined with technological advances that reduces the need for human labor. We’re more prosperous than ever without meaningful jobs for many.
There is globalization and multiculturalism. Modernity breaks up traditional societies and wages war on traditional religions.
This has led to the emergence of various groups and subcultures with which people increasingly identify. And of course there is social media, the perfect tool for creating and organizing splinter groups which also allows them to air their collective grievances around which they rally.
Ukraine is one of the very few nations in this century that has been able to overthrow a corrupt and oppressive regime without plunging into anarchy or civil war. In part, it has Vladimir Putin to “thank” for it: by annexing Crimea and invading the east he presented an immediate threat to Ukraine’s survival and helped focus the minds and unite the nation.
Now the situation seems different and the threat of an outright Russian invasion seems to have receded (but it has not been eliminated). Ukraine is a divided nation that is holding a presidential election. President Petro Poroshenko has some grudging supporters and many intransigent opponents. His main rivals, if elected, seem intent on negotiating with Putin and, for one reason or another, they may surrender the country’s vital interests.
Whatever the outcome of the election, Ukraine may soon be confronted by a different challenge: an internal threat to its governability, which Putin will do his best to stoke.
