- The rise of a dominant or Hegemonic Ideology
When the Soviet Union collapsed it lead to the “subsequent acceptance by the
Russian Government” to usher in “a rapid transition to market capitalism”
(Robinson, 2004, p.406). In Communist China, the reforms carried out by Deng
Xiaoping have been seen as the countries attempts to redefine itself, incorporating
policies normally seen in Neo-liberal theories (Greenhalgh, 2005). The
dominance of Neo-liberalism was cemented when in the US and the UK, the
traditional anti-free market parties succumbed to the power of the economic
rationality behind Neo-liberalism. In the US, Bill Clinton was consolidating this
success by re-orienting the Democratic Party’s economic policies along Neoliberal
lines (Beland, 2007). Whilst under Tony Blair, the traditional policies of
the UK’s Labour party were abandoned due to their market irrationality, being
replaced by the Neo-liberal ‘New Labour’ (Driver & Martell, 2002). This
convergence of political objectives was apparent to Blair, leading him to boast at
a Goldman Sachs conference that under New Labour the rich in Britain pay tax
"Lower than in most of Mrs Thatcher's years" (Toynbee, 2004). Bohle (2006)
shows how the European Union (EU) has accepted Neo-liberalism as its
motivating discourse, adding that during the eastern expansion of the EU, this
ideology was pushed via policy requirements on the joining states.
In conclusion, I believe that the rise of Neo-liberalism, represents the ideological
rebuttal of the democratic advances made during the 20th century. The market,
replacing God, demanded societal sacrifices that the common man was deemed
as too stupid to understand, this in turn facilitated the rise of a ‘technocratic’ form
of governance. This new form of governance, with its authority systems similar
to that of church authority, led to the relations between the state and its citizens
becoming “a pastoral relation of the state to its flock” (Brown, 2006, p.706).
Under Neo-liberalism the state and its citizens have became passive subjects,
requiring theorists and economists, the modern day priests, to amicably re-direct
us on the righteous path. Neo-liberalism is dangerous precisely due to its
invisibility, leading to social frustrations it causes to be re-directed at powerless
minorities and voiceless groups. Neo-liberalism has produced citizens who are
more eager for their own subjection and complicit in their subordination than any
democratic subject has been before. Its acceptance by the global ruling classes’
represents an understanding that when Neo-liberalism is initiated democratic rebalances
of wealth and power become impossible. Hopefully, this essay has
supported the belief that the relationship between Neo-liberalism and democracy
is akin to the relationship between the Lion and the Lamb.