The End of PowerDr. Riccardo Colasanti

Director, Rielo Institute for Integral Development

(RIID)

November 4, 2013

IntroductionIn his last book The End of Power (2013), Moises Naim

shows us that power, from a global point of view, is

decaying. Naim argues that we are living in a world

where the economic, political and religious historical

powers are less free to operate and are conditioned by

mass-media and social media as never before.

There is a central question if we

focus on western democracies:

Does less power mean

a positive evolution of

liberal democracy,

or is this a symptom of a

terminal decay?

Positive Effects:

1. The End of Power may mean more “checks and balances” fundamental to democracy

2. Less representation, more participation

An example: M5SIn the 2013 elections (Chamber of

Deputies), M5S (Five Star Movement)

reached 25.55% of the vote in Italy and

9.67% of overseas voters, for a total of

8,784,499!

Beppe Grillo (right),

leader of the

MoViemento Cinque

Stelle (M5S)

M5S Denies Representative

Democracy:

Elected

Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen

PoliticalExpert

… and fosters Direct

Democracy:

Nobody speaks for others

One is worth One

Direct Democracy = E-Democracy

Negative Effects:But what about the second possibility?

What if this decay of power is the expression of

a sickness of liberal societies?

The moment of a transition to a new,

different social structure?

The first sign of the fall of a

civilization?

Power becomes fragile in

pre-revolution times …

Thereafter, revolutions start up, a

new strong power is created, and a new

ordersubstitutes the previous one.

Example: The Fall of the

Roman Empire

The Roman Emperor

Constantius II is the typical

example of a big power, with

no limits:

Nevertheless, the 4th century Roman historian, Ammianus

tells us that before Constantius, the emperor and supreme

leader, could propose an advantageous peace agreement

to the Alamanni (354 a.d.), he had to beg permission from

all of his army, using the rhetoric of humility and flattery and

not the usual words that we should expect from an

emperor.

Emperor Constantius II

remarks to his troops:

“and I believe that there are many reason

why,

if I have your approval,

it [peace treaty] should be granted.”

Fifty years later:

Alaric, King of Goths, sacked

Rome with his army

France, 1787 …

King Louis XVI, still the expression of the absolute power

of the monarchy in France, summoned a representation

of notables to assure support for the new tax reform.

The assembly that was created to

support a reform, where the members

were selected by Calonne (his Finance

Minister), floundered.

Calonne was dismissed and exiled.

The absolute king’s power was onlyformal.

Even the elite close to him, denied the project.

Five years later the King’s head felt down

into the basket and was shown to thousands

of people gathered to see the execution at

Place de la Concorde.

By the way …

Revolutions are not anticipated

Twenty five years ago …

Tmur Kuran, at the University of Southern

California,

published a paper showing that:

“A feature shared by certain major

revolutions is that they were not

anticipated”

not only to the political power but even to the

leaders of revolutions

1917 RussianRevolutionIndeed, in the early days of 1917, Lenin

told an audience in Switzerland that older

men like himself would not live to see

Russia's great explosion.

October 1917

Bolshevik Revolution

February Revolution 1917

Just three days before the Romanov

dynasty was over thrown …

the British Ambassador cabled his

Foreign Minister:

“Some disorders occurred

today, but nothing serious.”

Adbuster October 10, 2013

End of Power

or

End of Consent to

Power?

Power needs consent

Power does not exist without

consent and trust.

Consent is coessential with power.

Even the Mafia’s Godfather,

without the trust of his fellow,

is just a puppet.

Decay of Power?

Nobody can deny that

the trust of the electors

is vanishing everywhere:

fewer people

vote,

fewer people trust

in their government.

Decay of power or decay of consent to

actual power?

People understand that:

something is wrong …

something is not working …

something has to be changed …

Sickness of

DemocracyIs the acute crisis of

Democracy the outcome of

some bad events: (financial,

political, hegemonical)?

or

Is it a genetic disease of

our civilization?

Two “genetic” problems

in Democracy:

1. People think that freedom

and equality will solve every

social problem.

2. We have limited civil human

relations to the realm of the

free market.

Will freedom and equality

solve every social problem?

While freedom and equality are

necessary conditions for a wonderful society, at the same time, they are not

sufficient to achieve the goal of a society rich in meaning and worthy to

be lived; in order to “pursue happiness”…

something is missing.

Limiting civil human relations

to the realm of the free market:

While the society of freedom puts

forth a strong definition of the

“individual human being”… at the same

time, the concept of relationship is

blurry: civil relationships among

humans …

cannot be limited to swap

transactions

Indeed, in many cases, the model

of society as a “Free Market”is a herd of Selfish Egoist Beings,

with:

no present,

no past,

no future.

yet, at the same time:

in the “Society of

Equality”,

like Marxist societies,the group is more important

than the individual:

equality constrainsliberty.

Grounding the best society on the

closednessof the individual (free society)

or of the group (equal society)

does not work: it is a nightmare.

Everywhere prevails fears and rage

We need a new paradigm

Not of Violence, Guns or Sticks

To prevent a revolution, or the fall of the empire,

we have to fix the contradictions deeply rooted in

our modern civilization.

FixingIdentity withRelationship:

Fixing the Principleof Identity with thePrinciple of Complementarity

Maybe the “End of Power” is

the twilight of the old empire,

or maybe it is a forewarning

of

the dawn of a new society:

where the central dogma is

not the radical exaltation of

the individual human being

or the totalitarian exaltation of

the group.