One of the things that the modern democracies are struggling now is with making clear judgment or assessments about things including truth. Having been used to mostly civil public discourse for decades, there are groups which are sick of endless debates and trying to take shortcuts. And often, the shortcuts means both the left and right of society are coroborating to destroy the foundations of democratic debates and wrestling but instead resorting to de facto power.
If that is seen as a solution to winning the superpower race for the US, it is seriously misguided. De facto power isn’t so much what reigns in China. Rather, it is ultimately a government’s care for countrymen and ability to uplift the bottom strata of society that wins legitimacy and organising authority. Think of governance and leadership in any country as an organising authority – this group helps coordinate things that do not naturally emerge in the market, and make decisions on trade-offs.
Democracy tries to push the debate on trade-offs to a wider, more diverse group and that forms politics. But what are the issues to push out and what are those to be decided by the bureacrats is something to be determined by culture and society. Ideally, devolution of power to the local helps ensure the higher levels of government focus on the most critical issues.
But that’s the rationalistic approach. Reality is more complex because politics always finds its way to play the rules rather than by the rules. So local authority uses devolved power to block larger developments, and higher levels of government sometimes have to do horse trading of issues. Regardless of the ills of the system, we need to determine if this is the way to make the best judgment for the overall society. Sure, things may benefit one segment of the population but not others; but at the very least, people can agree on a course of action suited for the society over the longer time horizon.
I think part of the lack of judgment have to do with the way philosophy is taught and viewed in our society these days. Different ideas are taught without recognising what frameworks are suitable for what kind of context and decisions. And at the same time, this coincides with the relativisation of moral values. The less we consider and cultivate broader civic virtues in society, the more it reflects in our politics less of it.
Applying judgments in the society requires that some basic principles and values be accepted broadly as the foundation of the society. If everything is subjective and relative, then politics becomes simply a beauty contest with extremely irratic outcomes.