Recently many
publications of economists and philosophers were released which question and
want to contain the dominant role of the economy and the market in our
societies of today (e.g. R. and E. Skidelsky, T. Sedlacek, L. Herzog, M.
Sandel). They demand that the role of the economy has to be debated publicly.
This corresponds basically to the demand for a primacy of politics over
economy. But why is it important to contrast the primacy of politics with the
one of economy?
First of all it is
decisive to see that among all political views of a society also such exist according
to which the economy and its material fruits indeed are not seen as an end in
itself. In a society living the primacy of real democratic politics institutional
conditions are in place which enable to include all (non-radical) political
views and matters of a society. Of course, and this is fully clear, also in
such case economy will play an important role simply because people want sustenance
and wealth.
In a society in
which the primacy of economy rules economic issues are basically considered as
the most important ones. Principles like the market, growth or profit
maximization become to end purposes of all existence. All forces which potentially
constrain the forces of the pure market as the only regulative force will be
fought. Factually (and although democratic institutions may still exist) this
model of society shows fundamental and even totalitarian traits: everybody has
to subjugate herself to the primacy of economy and its principles, if she wants
or not.
Once established, to
depart from this model is difficult: each concept of economy other than the one
of a neoliberal economy acknowledges also other matters than pure economic ones
to have a meaning or value on their own (e.g. stakeholders, society, environment).
This of course endangers the economic primacy. But a society with e.g. a
primacy of religion has similar problems: all its members have to subordinate
themselves to religious principles if they want or not.
Only the primacy of
politics which is committed to a democratic order can provide remedy: only in
this way the full colourfulness of views of a society can be integrated.
Despite this also caution has to be exercised: material power asymmetries
between political actors e.g. can influence the formation of majorities. Moreover,
it has to be acknowledged that politicians like R. Reagan or M. Thatcher which have
contributed significantly to the primacy of economy were democratically elected.
Because today we
know to what such primacy is able to do critic at it has become good form even
in economic circles. But the voyage has not ended yet: the actual requirement
is the return to the primacy of politics and also to stay there. To stay there
it is also necessary to debate in Aristotelian manner what is good and hence
moral. To think about the good helps preserving before leaving the primacy of
politics: nobody will then voluntarily leave this primacy for a
fundamental-totalitarian system, be it of religious, economic or of other
character.
Claude Meier
