In January 2017, I speculated on humanity’s evolution during
2016, which witnessed an atypical American President-Elect and an atypical form
of democracy in the EU referendum held in the UK, not to mention continuing strife
in the Islamic world. See: http://bit.ly/2hH1pvx
So, how do you summarise 2017?
I think a single word probably does it: Disappointing.
But you could allude to a couple of fascinating developments
in France and Saudi Arabia; more on this later.
America
Let’s start with the United States (US), following on from
where I finished in my review of 2016.
It was pretty clear to non-Trump supporters that most of his
pre-election ‘promises’ were untenable; however, to give Mr Trump credit, he
appears to be trying to implement them! I
think it’s important to remember Mr Trump (in the scheme of US businesses) is a
moderately successful businessman with very little real experience of politics. If the election of a President were analogous
to applying for a job, Mr Trump’s CV would not have got through initial
screening. Having said that, it appears Mr
Trump does believe his pre-election ‘promises’ would be actionable and, therefore,
improve the US. He certainly has
conviction! Many people consider this is
delusional, whereas Mr Trump’s supporters consider he is essential, in order to
return the US to its former ‘greatness’.
I can imagine the tensions in the White House where the
various Secretaries have to try and formulate viable policies and persuade The
Boss to sign them off; not to mention having to deal with The President’s
Twitter policy-making habit. Having had direct
experience of American business, where your boss is always right and you don’t
even consider discussing alternative, potentially better ways of doing things,
the likelihood is that the White House will continue being dysfunctional, as
well as a soap opera. This is the
opposite of what Mr Trump’s supporters expected, prior to his election. Many of them still think Mr Trump will sweep
away the old (particularly Democrat) politics and replace it with a new
nirvana. Old dogs are rather poor at
learning new tricks, but one can hope!
The main recommendation I can make to Mr Trump, is to quit
Twitter (and all other social media), concentrate on getting up the learning
curve, understand the bigger picture and, in the process, become ‘Presidential’.
Sadly I can’t see it happening soon; we should
anticipate continuing (somewhat embarrassing) media spotlight and poor policies.
I feel sorry for whoever has to clean up
the mess afterwards.
United Kingdom
Now to the UK. The
vote to leave the EU threw a big spanner in the works. A safe pair of hands was urgently needed to
take the UK forward. Interestingly, my
pick, after David Cameron’s principled resignation, was Theresa May, based on
her previous tenure in the Home Office.
My second choice was Michael Gove, believing him to be competent, but
probably unable to take the Conservative Party with him. As 2017 showed, Mrs May was far from
politically astute; having called a General Election and wiped-out her majority,
she was apparently guided by a couple of (unelected) advisors, who were
completely disconnected from the real world.
In short, a political disaster, at completely the wrong time.
Now you can look at this from a different perspective; the
Conservatives had little choice but to battle on with Mrs May because the
alternative (the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn) was too horrific to
consider. I’ve commented elsewhere on
the (relative) success of the Labour Party in the General Election. They did well convincing young, inexperienced
voters, through use of social media, that we all deserved well-paid jobs, more
money for the National Health Service (as Tony Blair undertook previously and
found didn’t result in the expected improvements), plus nationalised utilities and
railways. All to be paid for by
increasing taxes, particularly on the rich.
Déjà vu. In fact, a re-run of the
UK in the 1970s. This apparent nirvana
was soaked up by the millennials who thought it was great and voted in droves
for Mr Corbyn (who now has a cult following!).
I don’t want to speculate what the UK would be like in 2018, if Mr
Corbyn had won.
Sadly there aren’t currently any real, let alone exceptional,
leaders in British politics. Mrs May has
lost a lot of credibility and Mr Corbyn has probably peaked, unless the other
parties allow him to hoodwink voters again.
France
What about France? I
think France had their best year for many decades. The stale traditional parties and politicians were
finally rejected following Monsieur Macron’s stunning election. Who’d have thought the French would, or could,
do that? But, French politics was very
decadent.
This was a big wake-up call to the long-established, proper
democracies; but probably not to the US, where Mr Trump succeeded in rallying
the ageing conservatives who want to return to the lifestyle of the 50s, or late
70s and 80s (avoiding the soul-searching of race riots and Vietnam). Mr Trump’s supporters want to go back to what they consider to be their
golden age, whereas French voters threw out the old, dysfunctional, ineffective
elites, who had feathered their own nests. France clearly wants to go forward.
Can Monsieur Macron change decades of French decadence? The probability of success has to be low, but
we should give them maximum support and hope France doesn’t revert to the old
ways.
Germany
There was always going to be a backlash against Mrs Merkel’s
wonderfully compassionate welcome to large numbers of migrants. Very moral, but a huge political gamble. This unilateral decision has large
ramifications for all members of the EU (with the exception of the UK). The large numbers of migrants that end up
with German residency become EU members with freedom to move within the
Union. Not surprisingly, many EU members
do not support this. And why should Mrs
Merkel’s unilateral decision be whole-heartedly supported by the other EU countries?
When it came to election time, voters
abandoned Mrs Merkel and the country still doesn’t have a government, whilst continuing
to deal with who are valid refugees and who are economic migrants. What a mess.
You could argue that Germany needs a 2017 French Revolution on the basis
that old German politics is not suited to the current situation; so, time for a
change? Very few thought the French
would entertain radical change; Germany is as politically conservative as
France was, pre-Monsieur Macron. However,
I suggest you don’t hold your breath.
Saudi Arabia
It’s quite fascinating to see a fantastically rich country
realise their primary resource, oil, is now a global hazard and they are not
going to completely monetize their vast reserves, because the oil era is beginning
to end (see: http://bit.ly/2E0Nf1C). Although extremely wealthy, their politics
were from the early 20th Century and the underlying Islamic system, is
many hundreds of years old.
How refreshing to have a new, young, (albeit inexperienced)
power behind the throne? I suspect,
however, that Yemenis would not agree.
Who would have predicted Saudi Arabia would be rapidly changing or, should
I call it, speeding towards the 21st Century? Women driving! Women attending soccer matches! A planned IPO of Aramco! Steady on!
I’ve suggested elsewhere a useful national strategy for the
Saudis (and other Middle-Eastern and North African nations): Solar Power
generation, linked to large-scale active atmospheric CO2 removal. In this scenario Saudi’s oil sales could be
partially mitigated, in terms of carbon impact, thereby monetizing more oil, but
with reduced environmental impact.
Wrap Up
To finish up, 2017 is probably the year when two elements of
radical change came to fruition. In the
US where Mr Trump’s supporters wanted to sweep away the old politics and
replace it with radical, but in reality, older
politics; not a recommended approach. Whilst
in France, real radical change occurred, led by a young, highly educated, and worldly
leader. You’ve spotted the obvious
difference between the not recommended and the recommended radical change? Opposite
directions.
It would be fun to have a global rule: Politicians must have
worked in a real (i.e. commercial) job for a minimum of 10 years before
entering politics and cannot hold the highest office once older than 70 years. I suggest this would reduce the numerous
cases of (predominantly) old men in charge of both proper and pseudo-democracies
(think Russia, for example) who tend to bias nostalgia and their own egos,
rather than modern thinking /evolution.
So, was 2017 a year of continuing decadence? Yes and no.
The events in France and Saudi Arabia indicate countries can change
rapidly by severing elements of the past and moving forward; whereas, the US
chose to sever the immediate past and is currently trying to revert to an
earlier, apparently great golden age.
Your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment