The world and its leaders

Jeremy Seabrook
The Statesman, 14 October

It has often been observed that the contemporary world lacks leaders of stature and vision. Of the great statesmen of the last century, few remain. Perhaps Nelson Mandela is the sole survivor of a generation of freedom fighters, to whom the word “struggle” was familiar, and who remained humane and unembittered by the imprisonment and isolation imposed by the apartheid regime in South Africa.

It is not that the planet no longer requires women and men of vision. Quite the contrary. Whether we look at the so-called “war on terror”, growing inequality, the perilous condition of the biosphere, the rise of “non-state actors”, traffic in human beings, the increasing social violence that seems to come with economic success, it is clear that people with the ability to inspire others are desperately needed. Rarely has there been such a dearth of idealists and visionaries, when they are most urgently sought by a puzzled and wondering humanity.

If we pass in review some of those called upon to deliver us from the tensions and insecurities of this age, what we see, for the most part, is individuals whose abilities fall pitifully short of the purpose. Will anyone say that George W Bush has made the world safer during his tenure of the White House? Confronted by the enormity of 9/11, he declared that the struggle against Al-Qaida demanded a more subtle and measured response than a conventional war. He then not only killed thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan as a by-product of the removal of the Taliban, but also followed up this triumph with the ill-fated assault upon an Iraq which posed no threat to the USA in 2003. Iraq subsequently became a nursery for new forms of hatred and sectarianism, and the further alienation of the majority of Muslims from Bush’s visionless project for the world. And even in the shadow of this humanitarian disaster, he is actively preparing a strike against Iran, which, he believes, will “save” West Asia from the further consequences of his own tragic blunders in the region.

And where were the voices counseling caution and sagacity in presence of the grandiose folly of the puny white man in the big white house? Tony Blair, victim no doubt of the same imperial delusion which animated his political soulmate, settled for a share in the “glory” which should have come from the ousting of Saddam. And even a Europe which made faint noises of objection at the time of the invasion of Iraq, has subsequently mended its ways, electing the sycophantic Sarkozy and Germany’s own “iron lady”, Angela Merkel, whose principal desire is to propitiate the only superpower by bringing the benefits of its economic model to their own countries, including, of course, the pleasing fallout from the “sub-prime” mortgage scandal.

Looking further afield, we search in vain for an element of generosity or nobility in other leaders. Vladimir Putin has revitalised a Russia left prostrate after the shock therapy of capitalism, but he has done so with an authoritarian disregard for democracy, aided and abetted by a plentiful supply of the energy supplies, on which the economic wellbeing of neighbouring countries is dependent.

China, a potential counterbalance to the monoculture of the USA, cannot swiftly enough repeat the excesses of the early industrial revolution by poisoning its environment and spreading the diseases of pollution among its captive peoples, in earnest mimicry of the malign “developmentalism” which now dominates the entire planet.

India, too, has its technocratic elite, lauding its economic take-off, while at the same time presiding over the largest concentration of poor people in any country; such has been its outstanding wisdom that many poor farmers have preferred to take their own lives, rather than face the indebtedness that has arisen from their obedient response to the counsels of wealth and power.

Other countries have sought all kinds of messiahs and liberators: some military, like the egregious Musharraf, whose pompous and ruthless posing has brought him such unparalleled popularity; others have risen by dint of great riches, like Thaksin in Thailand, whose billions bought him public favour until he was toppled by a military coup; or the impresario Berlusconi in Italy, who bought a temporary success with his media fortune. More recently, Bangladesh has been “saved” from politicians by a techno-military administration which proposes to “restore” a democracy which has so far eluded that happy land. There are other “rescuers” at hand - the archaic and brutal junta in Myanmar, the populists of South America, the repressive regimes of Iran or Sudan, the occupation by US proxy Ethiopia of the wasteland that is Somalia, the unreconstructed dictators of Cameroon or the Congo.

There is no mystery in the shabby quality of today’s craven leadership. What would be the point in having humanitarians or idealists in charge? The purpose of governance of today’s world is not to inspire hope, not to work for human development, not to travail to bring about a better world. The highest duty of elites is simply the superintendence of a system already in place. Global capitalism has its own iron laws and inviolable rules, its own imperatives and necessities.

Today’s rulers are called upon to exercise a managerial role, to ensure the smooth working of processes which have already been set in train. They are mere functionaries. Why should anyone look to them for anything other than fulfilling their predetermined role in the unfolding of a future already foretold, and inscribed in the universal imagery of perpetual merchandising?

Of course there is never any shortage of people ready to assume responsibility, even for events over which they have little control, as long as this is accompanied by trappings of power - the military parades, the strident rallies, the wailing sirens of security escorts, the luxurious lifestyles, parades and receptions with their peers abroad and the intermittent adulation of crowds.

Globalisation gets the leaders it requires, and perhaps, deserves. It is their present dismal destiny to preside over as serene as possible a transfer of the wealth of the world from poor to rich in the name of free markets, one of the most curious properties of which is to enslave human beings. We should not look to them for emancipation, for hope, for deliverance. The future which they promise is a place already occupied by more of what we see now - more megacities and slums, more agrarian despair, more segregation of rich from poor, more injustice, more inequality and more unbearable pressure upon the resource-base of the earth, whose capacity to carry future generations has already been compromised by their sightless visions of a succession of infinite tomorrows exactly like today, only more so.

There are, of course, millions of idealists and visionaries everywhere; but they work in obscure places, their contributions are seldom recognised, their achievements often passed over in silence, their small successes uncelebrated. The business of the world and the world of business have become one; and the triumphal passage of this entity through time is now the supreme calling of those to whom the title of “leaders” is only a savage and hypocritical courtesy.