To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
By Takenori Inoki / Special to The Yomiuri Shimbun
11:00 JST, September 13, 2024
Authoritarian tyranny and protectionist trade policy are spreading throughout the world. This trend suggests that just believing in the principles of democracy and the market system is not enough to prevent the occurrence of social pathology.
Democracy is considered to be the best political system, but the presence of a stable middle class capable of maintaining financially balanced lives is a prerequisite for the healthy management of democracy.
However, income distribution has become increasingly uneven in many countries. In the West and Asia, a growing number of leaders have gained support by inciting the people with extreme comments and behaviors. At the same time, debate is being limited by the increase in taboo expressions, which only exacerbates the social trend of suppressing opposing opinions.
Freedom versus equality?
With democracy under threat, we have to face the question of whether its fundamental values of “freedom” and “equality” can actually coexist.
This is because thorough guarantee of equality is eroding people’s freedom, while unrestricted market competition is widening economic disparity.
The end of the Cold War was said to be a victory for the market economy and democracy. Free and fair market activities vitalize economies. However, the free market has become a venue for successful economic elites to empower themselves so much they can influence the dynamics of politics. Sovereign states are no longer able to fully rein in advanced technologies or the economic power generated by them.
A self-expanding mechanism is at work that allows accumulated wealth, earned thanks to competition, to create more wealth, and society finds it difficult to control the excesses of freedom. As a result, the middle class, which is supposed to underpin the foundation of democracy, has become smaller and smaller.
Unconditionally approving of democracy and wholly praising market freedom is a reflection of what George Orwell described as “doublethink” in his novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them,” Orwell wrote. This includes wanting freedom and emphasizing the importance of equality, refusing to open one’s eyes to the moment these two values of democracy collide — an attitude that is tantamount to self-deception.
The principles that support democracy and free market competition include these creeds, which cannot be simultaneously realized in their current state.
It was less than 100 years ago that a dictator emerged who suppressed freedom by taking advantage of the fact that people were unaware of this discrepancy. The loss of freedom progresses in such small increments that we hardly notice it. At the end of the day, people are bent on thinking “it’s bad manners not to be like everyone else.”
When people are swayed by an autocratic leader’s empty, uniform slogans, the situation creates a constrained social atmosphere in which the whole population oppresses itself.
In recent years, extreme nationalism that vehemently espouses campaigns against immigration has been gaining ground in Europe, reshaping the region’s political power balance. Anti-immigrant movements and hate crimes can be considered examples of oversimplified extreme arguments caused by the “doublethink” mentality, which try to satisfy contradicting desires.
Developed economies are suffering from declining birth rates and workforce shortages. If they really want to deal with labor scarcity and stay globally competitive, they have to secure a quality workforce from outside.
Some people become opposed to or hostile toward immigrants, arguing, “Workforce shortages can be solved with advancements in information technology.” But their theory is based on nothing but doublethink-induced optimism, proving that they are not acknowledging the actual circumstances surrounding production sites.
In tackling the issue of workforce shortages, many member countries of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development see the acceptance of immigrants as an opportunity to secure human resources. They are competing to attract professionals and skilled workers. Nonetheless, countries that are accepting immigrants as a solution to the decline in the working-age population without adequate preparation are likely to end up energizing extreme nationalism. In fact, people in European countries have become increasingly wary of the influx of immigrants into their lands, which they think is becoming uncontrollable.
Pro- or anti-immigrants
In this instance, too, we see the presence of two incompatible desires. One is bigoted nationalism that is driven by worries that the influx of immigrants will cause host countries’ traditions and cultural values to be lost. The other is the host countries’ need to rely on foreign workers to fill the labor gap as a way of fueling economic growth.
According to Germany’s Federal Statistical Office, the country’s population rose by about 300,000 people over the course of 2023 to reach 84.7 million. Although Germany is faced with a lower birth rate, a net increase in the number of immigrants drove population growth.
Even so, support is growing for the far-right populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is opposed to immigrants. Anti-immigration movements have intensified in the eastern German cities of Dresden and Chemnitz, causing foreign workers to quit their jobs. As a result, a paucity of skilled workers is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.
At the same time, Canada, which has implemented a different immigration policy, has now started revising its approach of proactively welcoming immigrants into the country. The Canadian population surpassed 41 million earlier this year, up about 1.3 million in a year.
A large part of the increase was due to temporary immigrants such as foreign workers and students. Those non-permanent residents have compensated for the dearth of workers in Canada.
However, in recent years, some international students in Canada left for other countries because they struggled with the inflated costs of living and difficulties finding suitable rental housing. Canada’s immigration minister announced in January this year that the government would set a two-year cap on international student visas with a 2024 upper limit of about 360,000, down 35% from the 2023 level.
The Canadian government is assumed to have revised the immigration policy to seek a balance between anti-immigration sentiment at home and the need to invite the best possible professionals and skilled workers to come to the country.
The issue of insufficient workforces resulting from population shrinkage needs to be resolved as urgently as possible. To rely on foreign workers for that purpose, it is indispensable for any country to not only provide them with a certain standard of living but also to have policies in place to keep its own people’s employment and salaries from decreasing.
Canada’s recent actions are perhaps a case of tenaciously pursuing a “proper balance” to keep the people of the host country from either unilaterally prioritizing economic growth or falling into extreme xenophobia.
The key is making a conscious choice to prioritize one issue because it is of greater importance, instead of sticking to a doublethink-type demand of wanting to have it both ways.
It is not easy to attain the following three principles: decision-making through democratic procedures; tolerant nationalism; and economic globalization. In an actual policymaking process, there is no choice but to adopt a policy of compromise. A prudent and progressive solution requires measures to definitely control the influx of immigrants even on a trial-and-error basis, as in the case of Canada.
Democracy and the market system are not goals in themselves — they are just means to realize the basic idea of respecting human beings’ independence and spontaneity. If the means cannot adequately serve their purposes, the relevant systems themselves should be revised and improved.
Takenori Inoki
Inoki is a professor emeritus at Osaka University, where he also served as dean of the economics department. He was a specially appointed professor at Aoyama Gakuin University from 2012 to 2016. Prior to that, he served as director general of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies from 2008 to 2012.
The original Japanese article appeared in the Sept. 8 issue of The Yomiuri Shimbun.
