BOOK ANALYSIS
The End of Power: From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being Charge Isn’t What It Used to Be. Moisés Naím.
This book analysis will focus on Moises Naim’s thoughts on power as reflected in his book the End of Power. Dr Moisés Naím is an internationally-syndicated columnist and best-selling author of influential books. He served as Venezuela’s Trade Minister, Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy, turning the magazine into a modern award-winning publication on global politics and economics. He has also served as an Executive Director of the World Bank, and currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His prize-winning work is highly influential in the world of international politics, economics and business. Given his background, he is well placed to discuss the rise and fall of giants in the world’s political and economic scene.
He writes that 21st century power is easier to get, harder to use and easier to lose. Naim introduces the game of chess and how it has evolved over the last fifty years. Chess was once a game of the privileged both intellectually and financially. Nations used to invest a lot in their players in order to make the champions, Grandmasters. In 1988 there were only 22 Grandmasters in the world and in 2013 there were more than 1200 Grandmasters. The question is, what changed? Technological advancements have made it easier to learn the game and simulate the toughest opponent, hence the power that lay in a few is now accessible to many. To prove this Naim introduces his main thesis, the More, Mobility and Mentality revolutions.
“More” people have been at the centre of India and China’s growth. Coupled with sound economic policies the two countries have been able to harness their demographic dividend to spur economic growth. The possibility of China over taking the US to become the super power is no longer incomprehensible.
Naim does an excellent job of introducing the power dynamics at play in the world today. He writes that the people have become more enlightened about the choices they have and the impact of their decisions. From one party political systems to democracies, monopolies to free trade and major advancements in the art of war and how the micropowers continue to threaten the existence of the megaplayers. He does point out that globalization has broken many barriers to information, changing the way people think and growing an insatiable need to be liberated from the yokes of ignorance and bondage.
In Chapter five (5) Moises Naim looks at the Decay of power in national politics. He refers to Beppe Grillo a comedian in Italy and the Grillo movement. The movement managed to poll about 20 percent of the national vote and win several mayoral seats. There are similar cases of anti political characters becoming popular among the voters and being elected officials. This can be seen in the 2016 US elections, people opting for the least qualified candidate, Donald Trump, to be President compared to Hillary Clinton who has thirty (30) years experience in government.
The role of the internet in changing the narrative can not be downplayed. Naim also writes about how the use of the internet has also caused radical changes in the world of politics, with increased citizen participation in governance and democratic processes. One of the many events that stand out is the Arab Spring that began in 2011. Social media played a great role as a tool for inspiring activists. Some may argue that in this case, social media caused the revolts in the rest of the regions. The Arab Spring in 2011 as well as the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns have fueled interest in how social media might affect citizens’ participation in civic and political life.
The second edition of the Arab Social Media Report reveals that nearly 9 out of 10 Egyptians and Tunisians used Facebook to organize and publicize protests and all protests except for one took place. Furthermore, the report found that Facebook usage increased or doubled between January and April of 2011. The overall number of users had increased by 30 percent to 27.7 m compared to the 18% increase in 2010. Usage in Bahrain escalated by 15 percent only in the first 3 months, Egypt 29% and Tunisia 17 %. Libya’s usage however, declined by 76% probably due to the extreme violence in the region. During the period of protests in Egypt and Tunisia, 88% of Egyptians and 94% of Tunisians said they had been getting their information from social media sites (Arab Social Media Report, 2011).
The power to create change now lies in the people being governed more than ever. From only about fifty (50) democracies in 1950 to over 100 in 2010 it is evident that the world has no room for despots. Techno giants such as Google, IBM and Microsoft are always wary of new players coming into the market and taking up their market. The size of a nations military does not guarantee safety anymore. Power that lay in a few is now accessible to many. With various technological advancements, small militaries and terrorist groups have capitalised, making it easier for them to carry out their activities.
Naim concludes that contrary to what Max Weber and other sociologists and economist of his time, size has little to do with success. Being a Large corporation is no longer a guarantee for success anymore. New players are now making the headlines, as the advantages of the large scale diminish opportunities for micropowers increase. A number of small start-ups like Vox media have grown to overtake giants like The New York Times in subscribers and viewership.
Basically, Naim is saying due to increased interconnectivity, technology and the rise in the world’s population the shift of power has become inevitable. The question is no longer how it can be stopped but how the world can adapt to the ever-changing shifts in power. He tries to move away from the notion that the world elite are still running the show to the fact that the seemingly silent and useless nations now have a say in what happens in the world. However, with the top spot, the super power position, being more contested now than ever it is important to still form allies and nations like India, China and Russia will stop at nothing to clinch that position.
True to his observations, the mobility revolution has also changed the political landscape of many countries. The migrant crisis that has seen refugees flocking to Europe and has also put a strain on their economies and their capacity to absorb all the migrants into their system. Naim points out that the Hispanic vote in America has become so crucial that in a few years’ time it will easily become the deciding vote in the election. Naim’s argument that the influence of super powers like the US and institutions like the UN is slowly dissipating is true, however, their power still exists.
One of the major determinants of a Presidents’ success is the bureaucrat. Bureaucrats put government policy into practice, and therefore having a large impact in policymaking. In order to get their policies passed, the Presidents in most democratic systems of governance must work with the bureaucracy. Controlling the bureaucracy can be difficult. This is also one of the major point that Naim does not address. A large chunk of what the President achieves also depends on the team he/she is working with. Comparing Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan’s presidency is not a fair measure of the amount of power held by either president. The prevailing geopolitical environments were different and the priorities in the domestic and foreign policies may have also been different.
Naim speaks of the rise to supremacy of the US and European nations but does not address the source of their wealth and the suppression of most of the developing world in the hands of the developed nations. The role of the slave trade and colonialism in Africa and South America in the underdevelopment of the two continents. It will forever remain a mystery if the absence of the slave trade and colonisation would have made a difference in the development of Africa but the psychological effects of it are still evident today. The US economy was built on the back of slaves and that of Britain and France would not be where it is today without the resources that came from former colonies.
It is now clear that policy on Iraq and Lybia was made based on flawed intelligence and assessments. Still they were not challenged, and they should have been. The question is, who is the UK and America accountable to?
The claim made by the UK and US Governments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction proved to be entirely false. The findings in the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (HCFAC) Report concerning the war of aggression against Iraq revealed that the judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified. The Joint Intelligence Committee should have made clear to Mr Blair that the assessed intelligence had not established “beyond doubt” either that Iraq had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons or that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued…
With regards to the conflict in Lybia that led to the ouster an death of Muammar Gadhafi, the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (HCFAC) Report states that, on 2 April 2011, Sidney Blumenthal, adviser and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reported his conversation with French intelligence officers to the Secretary of State”.
Blumenthal reported that these French intelligence officers said that President Sarkozy’s suggestions immediately to conduct a military campaign against Libya “were driven by the following issues:
- a desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
- increase French influence in North Africa,
- improve his internal political situation in France,
- provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, (and),
- address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”
The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (HCFAC) report says: “The sum of four of the five factors identified by Sidney Blumenthal equated to the French national interest. The fifth factor was President Sarkozy’s political self-interest.”
None of the French objectives explained by French intelligence officers, and known to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and therefore President Obama and the US Government, had anything to do with protecting Libyan civilians. They were focused on promoting French imperial interests in Africa, consistent with the historic neo-colonial French policy of Francafrique!
Naim writes about how much the war in Iraq has cost the US and UK but does not acknowledge the fact that neither the UN through it organs, the ICC, nor the EU has charged the two with crimes against humanity. This is clear evidence that power has not shifted at all. It still lies in countries with wealth and military power. To make matters worse the US is not even a signatory to the ICC.
Although Naim speaks to UN security council being made up of the big five and how they are not as free to dictate their will on the world body as before, he does not point out the need for the world body to reform its security council. If the UN is ever going to be viewed as an inclusive and non- partisan institution its security council must include developing nations from Asia, Africa and South America to be permanent representatives.
In the last few months from, September to November 2016, a few countries including South Africa and Burundi have indicated their intention to leave the International Criminal Court. Africans have lost their enthusiasm for the court’s style of international criminal justice, accusing it of bias. Fueling this suspicion is the fact that nine of the ten situations the court is currently investigating are in African countries.
An issue that has always been raised by African leaders is that if George Bush had been an African leader he would have been tried by the ICC for crime against humanity during the war in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni, despite once asking the court to help prosecute rebel fighters, praised South Africa’s decision, calling the ICC “useless.” Earlier this month, Burundi’s parliament voted to leave the court, submitting its withdrawal to the UN. Gambia followed suit, calling the court an “‘International Caucasian Court’ for the persecution and humiliation of people of color, especially Africans.” Kenyan lawmakers have already tabled a bill to withdraw from the court, and Namibia is also reconsidering its membership, saying the country no longer needs the court, now that its own institutions have strengthened.
Perhaps most significantly, the African Union earlier this year said it would consider a mass withdrawal from the court, a proposal initiated by Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, who had previously appeared at The Hague on allegations of crimes against humanity. This shows that power has not necessarily decayed. It is still in the hands of the super powers. If it had decayed equality amongst nations would have been reached a long time ago.
Naim ignores the fact that most democracies in Africa are just democracies on paper but the leaders are dictators. A very good example is that of Zimbabwe. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has been in power since 1980. Elections marred with violence and intimidation have been held regularly since his ascent to power but Naim still regards it as a democracy. There are many other countries in similar situations like Uganda, Burundi and Gambia. The systems of governance of most African countries have had a huge bearing on the level of development that has taken place on the continent and its ability to influence decisions at a global scale.
The table below shows how most developing nations still heavily rely on aid to sustain their populations. The flows of aid clearly show that there is still an imbalance of power. The OECD countries remain the largest contributors to the UN and other humanitarian relief agencies.
On global issues such as climate change Naim bewails how “more and more ‘small’ countries veto, foot-drag, demand special consideration, or generally undermine the efforts of the ‘big’ nations in one area after another” but does not talk about how much the ‘big’ nations block viable solutions being pushed by the ‘small’ nations. The developed countries remain the largest emitters of carbon emissions. He does not put into perspective the risks associated with climate change and how forces of nature can strip any super power of its power.
Governments, corporations, and other established powers have a long history of selfishness, exploitation, and destruction generating widespread suffering and disaster. In the last few years China has gone on a spending spree in Africa. Acting like a saviour from the east, China has taken advantage of aid dependant continent, weak investment and labour regulations in Africa from the extractive, manufacturing and banking industries. It has used the African market as a dumping ground for its cheap exports and labour.
Naim speaks highly of the increasing number of philanthropic organisations in America and world wide but he does not critically analyse the fact that despite huge investments in aid and humanitarian assistance in Africa, how come little has been achieved in ending poverty in the world. The same argument can be used when he talks about how developing nations are forming their own economic blocks, if these economic blocks are so successful how come no country has pulled out of the United Nations. The fact that the Commonwealth and the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie remain with members up to this day clearly shows that Britain and France may have lost their empires but they still hold the power.
For small businesses, the road to Wall street is not always easy with “mega players” always lurking like sharks to devour them. Facebook is the first to line up and buy new small media technological innovations that pose a threat to its domination. Facebook has bought WhatsApp and Instagram who were accumulating a large following. So contrary to what Naim says, size still matters in the world of business.
The Internet does introduce easier ways of communication and hence potentially makes dissemination of information and participation easier. However, it does not solve the problem of motivation. People may continue to abstain from participating if they do not believe that their participation will make a difference. Therefore, policies that are directed towards the utilisation of technology for democratic purposes need to consider the reasons behind citizens’ lack of interest before suggesting the Internet as a solution. As Dutton (1999) suggests, “Digital government can erode or enhance democratic processes…but the outcome will be determined by the interaction of policy choices, management strategies and cultural responses – not by advanced technology alone”
Naim also does not take into consideration that there are countries like China were internet activity is highly monitored and certain internet sites are censored. Hence, it might no be as effective in starting an “Arab Spring” protest.
Internet literacy is also a barrier to internet access. The skills and language used have to be appropriate if the message is going to reach the intended recipients. As technology continues to evolve so have the gadgets requires. In developing countries, more than 60% of the populations reside in rural areas where there is limited connectivity to the internet. The smarter the phones have gotten the less user friendly they have also become. Hence it is important not to abandon traditional sources of information and communication like the radio and television which are accessible to most people. Traditional media remains a relevant and crucial source of information for the masses in rural areas.
Naim does not gives a balanced argument on each of the four main arguments of the decay of power that in the end his position is not clear on whether power is really decaying. In chapter nine Naim writes that power resides in everything and everyone. If that is the case, then there is no decay of power. This contradicts his definition of power – is the capacity to get others to do or stop doing something- because if power is accessible everyone then no one can neither stop nor allow anyone to do anything. Naim does not address the need for countries to work together for a common goal. For him it is about who has the upper hand. There is no first among equals only a super power.
His power worldview is confined to the capacity to control, manage or dominate. It ignores other forms of power that become visible when we define power simply as “the ability to create effects”. These other forms of power include Charisma or personal power, Knowledge or expertise. From a gender perspective, his book makes it look like its still man’s world. He only makes one reference to a woman in a position of power in his whole book.
Naim writes that the world is over due for another radical and innovative event to change the course of the future. He is of the thinking that the world needs brand new institutions that will reassert the military and political supremacy of another country, dominance of another corporation and this will somehow end the decay of power. In my opinion, its more about refining the already existing institutions. Like mentioned earlier the United Nations needs to be reformed if its going to exist in the next 50 years. Smaller nations continue to feel disenfranchised by such inequalities.
In chapter 11 he also makes the assertion that only when trust is restored in the political systems at home endowing leaders with the capacity to contain the decay of power and enable them to make hard decisions and avoid gridlock will they be able to tackle the most pressing global challenges. Hence the need for stronger and more democratic political parties and political systems. He seems to ignore the fact that there are still some absolute monarchies that rule by decree and not the electoral system. There is no hope of building democratic institutions and in such places power is not decaying at all.
The biggest shortcoming of Naim’s otherwise excellent book, in my opinion, is how broad he looks at power. He touches on too many elements that he ends up confusing the reader and repeating himself in many instances. Chapters one to four are basically an introduction to the rest of the remaining book. He gets into the specifics of the book much later than the reader would want to.
Instead of calling it “the end of power” or the “decay of power”, it is more like the balance of power. Protests that are happening are because people want to have governance institutions that abide by the rule of law. The current world order is still far from changing, neither US, Russia nor China are willing to give up the power that they have. The collective power that comes from having allies who are willing to stand by them is just as important in claiming world dominance.
References
- Global Outlook on Aid Results of the 2014 DAC Survey on Donors’ Forward Spending Plans and Prospects for Improving Aid Predictability. (2014) http://www.oecd.org/dac/aid-architecture/GlobalOutlookAid-web.pdf
- Arab Social Media Report Vol. 1 2nd Edition. (2011) arabsocialmediareport.com.
- Durant, R. and Resh, W. (2011-01-02). “Presidentializing” the Bureaucracy.Oxford Handbooks Online. Retrieved 21 Oct. 2016, from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238958.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199238958-e-23.
- Mbeki, T. The Libyan Tragedy: Power in the Contemporary Geo-Political Setting. (2016) http://www.mbeki.org/2016/11/19/the-libyan-tragedy-power-in-the-contemporary-geo-political-setting