Open or Closed?
In his new book “Age of Revolutions” Fareed Zakaria writes that “British Prime Minister Tony Blair presciently observed in 2006 that the 21st century was seeing the fading of traditional left-right lines, and the great divide was becoming “open versus closed”.
In his seminal book “The Clash of Civilizations” Samuel Huntingdon wrote that the East-West divide was being replaced with a clash of civilizations, pitting Islamism against Western liberalism and the values of democracy and individual freedoms.
Zakaria, Blair, and Huntingdon are being proven right in 2024.
Left-right conflicts are becoming irrelevant, Western values are under attack from global Islamism, and populism is creating a paranoia among many voters who fear that globalization and that multiculturalism is replacing their own cultures and threatening their identities.
As well, autocracy versus democracy is becoming another great divide. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and others are working to support autocratic movements around the world, blurring further the left-right divide. Indeed, while China, Cuba and Venezuela claim to be leftist, their strong alliances with rightist Russia and Iran bely this.
In terms of open or closed, China is a prime example of a closed society that prevents its people from access to outside media while arguing that the opposition of many U.S. legislators to its ownership of TikTok goes against the principle of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the American constitution’s first amendment.
Rather than use social media as a tool to enhance Chinese access to non-Chinese ideas, research, and cultural products, the regime has chosen to isolate its citizens from global social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, as well as access to the world-wide web. It has created its own closed social media networks that can be easily monitored and controlled by Chinese security agencies and, thus, any ideas that go contrary to official policy are blocked from its citizens and could lead to arrest and imprisonment.
This underscores President Xi’s intentions to revert China towards an inward looking society committed to “Xi thought” with little contact other than tourism to the West, which practically only the elites who are part of the system can enjoy.
Another example of a closed (or closing) society is the United States. During the Trump administration U.S. policy towards the global community shifted drastically. Trump tried to weaken NATO at every turn, preferring to follow Russian president Putin’s wish to see NATO weakened or even destroyed rather than enhancing the democratic alliance and committing to an open policy towards its key allies in Europe.
He also worked diligently to weaken the European Union (E.U.) by supporting autocratic Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in his fights with Brussels to undermine the union and finding a key ally in the then Polish government that was following Orban´s lead in promoting undemocratic policies.
Sadly, Trump’s vision has led Republicans in the House of Representatives to avoid funding Ukraine in its existential war with Putin’s Russia – thus cementing in the minds of many that Trump is a Russian asset and that Republicans in both Houses of Congress are following him blindly in order to secure their own re-election.
Another example of a closed society is rejecting institutions that force openness and seek to eliminate the division of powers that guarantee fundamental rights and freedoms.
At home, Trump has wrested control over the Republican Party and converted it into a cult that follows him blindly. He constantly attacks the free media, the judiciary, the opposition and engaged in ad hominem attacks to belittle opponents and lies assiduously.
Today, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson claims that God has told him that he will be “America’s Moses and lead the country to its destiny. By attacking the fundamental tenet of American democracy – the separation of Church and State – Republicans are seeking to create a closed society in which other religions, atheists and agnostics will be relegated to second class status.
Republican opposition to immigration and Trump’s constant rants against undocumented migrants – claiming on a number of occasions that they are not human beings – underscores another strategy of dividing American society and closing the American mind to acceptance of those who are different.
Many other countries are flirting with closing their minds or borders. The dream of free trade in the 1990’s is giving way to more protectionist policies in many countries to assuage citizens wary of losing their jobs or domestic markets to foreign countries.
Finally, the anti-migrant feelings of many in the West – buttressed by fearmongering by populist leaders and poor policies by liberal governments – is fueling a level of hatred that is growing amid a rapidly growing refugee population escaping the very governments that populists seek to emulate.
The only way I can see out of the dilemma of open vs. closed societies is through the ballot box and out of the box thinking.
At the ballot box, voters must look for leaders who promise constructive policies that can yield long-term results yet retain democratic institutions and respect for human rights.
In diplomacy, governments must realize that stemming the flow of refugees requires providing the type of foreign aid that addresses the main causes of forced migration and not simply the implementation of Western democracy in countries that are ill prepared for it.
This will require two major elements: the reform of current multilateral institutions to provide the leadership demanded by 21st century conditions to ensure that governments that create inhumane conditions are punished severely; and, the development of new foreign aid strategies that ensures that funding from the developed world reach those in need and creates the economic conditions that provide hope and encouragement for people to stay at home rather than seek a better life elsewhere.
None of this is easy.
But the 21st century requires a revolution of the mentalities that have guided us to this point in time. This revolution requires all of us to participate and vote wisely.
Changing realities requires changing policies.
Absent this, change for the better cannot come.
Thank you for this.
Dear Eduardo, You are an excellent writer. You have summarized complex issues in a way anyone who can read can understand. I am tempted to say, the 21st Century needs more sprituality. André Malraux, a great French intelectual who served as Minister of Culture under Charles de Gaulle, said that the 21st Century will be spiritual or will not be. If you analyze Angela Merkel's leadership you can detect a strong Christian influence. She decided to accept one million refugees, and it was all about her conviction as a Christian that it was the right thing to do.