Moisés NaÃm, editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy, has a very interesting article, “Megaplayers vs. Micropowers.” According to Naim:
The proliferation of new microplayers capable of constraining their mega-sized rivals is a rising trend everywhere… In fact, it is one of the defining and not yet fully understood characteristics of our time… Such a world opens many new attractive opportunities for the little guy, whether a small country, a new company, or a talented individual. But those opportunities must come at the expense of something—and, in this case, that is stability.
Naim is not the first to describe this trend, the rise of the “little guy” or “micropower.” An Army of Davids by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame makes the same point, though in a far more positive way, focusing on entrepeneurial individuals. David Brin has a characteristically contrarian spin—discussing the conflict between privacy and transparency—but he envisages greater individual power, despite the loss of privacy. And of course Global Guerrillas discusses the same trend, but focusing on transnational violent non-state actors – terrorists, insurgents and so on.
Examples
Naim’s examples include the US vs. Islamists, Wikipedia vs. Britannica, Bolivia vs. Shell, and the Roman Catholic Church vs. Evangelicals, and big media vs. bloggers. This covers a very convincing range of actors. Why do so many believe that globalization will lead to homogeneity, fascism or corporatocracy, when in fact globalization is driving the redistribution of power to individuals and small groups or networks? I suspect most anti-globalization activists are actually concerned about the loss of power of certain existing groups.
But the implications are not all good. In security terms, the rise of micropowers is seen as an increase in the capabilities of terrorists and insurgents. Consider Hezbollah – it once would have seemed unthinkable for a small terrorist group to wage war against a state, using modern weapons like radar-guided cruise missiles, and hacking sophisticated radio communications. John Robb follows the trend:
First, over the next decade or two, the size of the group necessary for global warfare will continue to decrease and decentralize (through a near term shift to systems disruption and open source organizational forms). Second, we will eventually reach a point when the weaponry available to these groups will enable them to initiate a catastrophic black swan (an event that is impossible to predict).
The “return on investment” for terrorism is increasing massively – reportedly, the liquid-explosive terror attack on airliners would have cost just £7000. The plot may have been foiled, but extra security on flights and the flow-on effects cost hundreds of millions. Destruction is easier than production, so destructive micropowers have a larger increase in relative power.
In New Zealand politics
Naim describes a trend in politics worldwide:
a pattern whereby leaders elected with weak popular mandates are forced to govern by cobbling together fragile coalitions. These political partnerships are easily upended by microplayers who can use their ability to veto, stall decisions, or apply popular pressure on more powerful actors.
This is a perfect description of NZ politics, but in our case the trend has been actively encouraged by the switch to proportional representation. Social Credit once had several percent of the vote and one or two MPs, but they hardly ever showed up in Parliament – there was no point. The libertarian New Zealand Party in 1984 gained 12% of the vote, but no seats. But since 1996, it is the minor parties who hold the balance of power, and who can determine coalitions. Parliament is more democratic as a result, but also messier and less stable. This has also contributed to the current increase in political tension and division. However, as a member of a minor party I support MMP despite its flaws. A diversity of opinion and respect for less-powerful political actors may make politics less stable, but I think the advantages in terms of accountability and transparency outweigh the loss of stability.
The Darnton v. Clark lawsuit is an extreme example of a micropower constraining a megapower – the Libertarianz received 0.04% of the votes and yet we are suing Labour, with more than 40% of the vote, for misappropriation of public funds.
Conclusions
The rise of the micropower is due to the technological and social change of modernity and globalization. Improved communications technology in particular, and greater prosperity means that as individuals we are more free and more empowered than ever. But we must take responsibility as individuals – “with great power comes great responsibility.” Will we be apathetic, or force big government and other institutions to be transparent and accountable? Will we stand up for our rights? Defend our security?
We know that there are groups who want to destroy modernity, micropowers who are becoming more capable than ever. The megaplayers of the world will adapt or die. As individuals, we must be vigilant – the rise of the micropower makes us more capable, but it will also make the world around us unstable and unpredictable.
Political instability, long regarded as a matter for concern by the essentially conservative New Zealand electorate, both the mainstream Left and the mainstream Right, is actually a good thing. Instability in politics equates to uncertainty of Governmental tenure, which has the knock-on effect of keeping the buggers on their collective toes. In this I believe we agree.
Proportional representation in New Zealand has not yet shown its true worth, simply because New Zealanders have not yet learned how to use it. Our MMP voting system still delivers an FPP Parliament. We still believe in archane and counterproductive concepts such as “the tail wagging the dog”, even when the “dog” has the support of fewer than four voters in ten. Less than 40% support is an absolute minority, and does not provide any kind of mandate, by any stretch of mathematics.
But we are so steeped in the culture of having only two alternatives, that we have not as yet contemplated the possibility of real consensus politics, as practised this past half-century in much of Europe and Scandinavia. There, Governments may continue to govern, with the let of the Parliament, but without any guarantee that any particular piece of their party political legislation may pass muster. In coalitions, the leader of the smaller party is often given the job of being Prime Minister, with the leader of the larger party taking the deputy and Finance roles. This appears to help keep everybody honest.
MMP could be greatly improved by lowering the 5% threshold to the same level as that which equates to the total number of votes required in order to win a single electorate seat – about 1.5% I think, though I’m happy to stand corrected on the actual numbers.
As to the real influence of micropowers, in world terms, I believe this is still dictated by the possession of effective military and economic clout, and the demonstrated willingness to utilise them in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Small countries can be influential. Libya had around two and a half million people when it was holding the world to ransom during the seventies and early eighties, Cuba around the same if memory serves correct. Israel, Singapore, and Finland, have all had disproportionate influence in world affairs over the past several decades.
You mention Social Credit with regard to politics in New Zealand, as well as the Bob Jones’ party; their lack of real influence can be more accurately attributed to the faulty FPP system than to the real concerns and issues which their existence and relative success demonstrated. But it was largely pressure from Social Credit activists which convinced Labour to seriously re-examine the concept of proportional representation (coupled with Labour’s own frustration at securing more votes than National in 1981 and still losing the election), and the New Zealand Party lives on to this day in the form of ACT.
Left by Newt on October 3rd, 2006