Pranab Bardhan's latest lunacy

Pranab Bardhan's latest book 'A world of insecurity' is described by its publishers as

' An ambitious account of the corrosion of liberal democracy

which simply has not happened anywhere. There may have been some pretense in this regard after the end of the Cold War and before it became obvious that the War on Terror had been terribly counterproductive. But, since 'liberal democracy' has no magic powers, a pretense is all that obtained. No country has seen any dramatic change in the nature of its polity. Twenty years ago, India was ruled by the BJP just as it is now. In America, a Republican had replaced a Democrat as President and that pendulum continues to swing. In Europe, a supposed convergence between West and East to an 'ordoliberal' model had begun to appear problematic and that remains the case. China then was what it is now though some in the West preferred to cherish illusions in that regard. In Russia, Putin was firmly in the saddle, where he remains. Academic availability cascades and faux-activism funded by Western Foundations may have tried to put lipstick on pigs, but nobody cared about those Gadarene swine.

in rich and poor countries alike,

rich countries have always seen a pendulum politics between conservative and liberal administrations. Poor countries may appear more liberal or conservative as a result of 'elite choice' but their trajectories can only be understood in comparison with similar poor countries irrespective of their form of government.  

arguing that antidemocratic sentiment reflects fear of material and cultural loss,

majoritanianism is a democratic sentiment. South Asians should know this. The transition to democracy meant partition on the basis of religious majoritarianism. 

As for 'fear of material and cultural loss'- it obtains at all times and in all places. For those who belong to the majority in a democratic country, it can't possibly explain anti-democratic sentiment. All one could say is that the majority might want to Dictatorship to speed things up a bit. But, the fact is Democracies are more, not less effective than Dictatorships simply because they can concentrate all coercive power on the common enemy.  

not a critique of liberalism’s failure to deliver equality,

Liberalism isn't supposed to deliver equality. Communism is. Once Liberalism proved unable to prevent Death Duties and 'super-tax' and conscription into the armed forces, it curled up and died. The choice was between a Leftish party appealing to those who toiled and a Rightist party which paid lip service to God and Country and Tradition.  

and suggesting possible ways out.

Bardhan is as stupid as shit. He doesn't know what is happening. How can he suggest improvements? 

The retreat of liberal democracy in the twenty-first century has been impossible to ignore.

There has been no advance and no retreat. Things are as they were prior to 9/11 only more so. True the Taliban is better entrenched in Afghanistan and Iranian power and influence have expanded. The Islamic world is now more disdainful of America which lost a foolish and corrupt war of revenge, but that would have happened in any case.  

From Wisconsin to Warsaw, Budapest to Bangalore, the public is

what it was. Twenty years ago, Wisconsin had a Democratic Governor as it does now.  The guy who was Mayor of Warsaw, 20 years ago became President a couple of years later. After his death, his brother remains the power behind the throne. Thus nothing changed in either Wisconsin or Warsaw. Orban ruled in Budapest then as he does now. Bangalore remains caught in pendulum politics between Congress and the BJP. It remains to be seen whether the latter will overcome anti-incumbency in polls later this year. Even if it does, it will be because of Yediyurappa who is now 80 years old. 

turning against pluralism and liberal institutions and instead professing unapologetic nationalism and majoritarianism.

This simply isn't true. Poland is as nationalistic now and it was then while Orban is still the same Orban. Nothing has changed. Why is this fool pretending otherwise? True, twenty years ago the Left Front ruled his home state of West Bengal. Now the Left- which didn't believe in Democracy at all- has disappeared there. But it is doing well in Kerala. 

Critics of inequality argue that this is a predictable response to failures of capitalism and liberalism,

This isn't an entirely stupid notion. If minorities aren't seen as making a disproportionate economic contribution from which the majority benefit, liberal policies have less appeal. If markets are making only a narrow oligarchy richer, then Capitalism is less appealing to the masses.  

but Pranab Bardhan, a development economist, sees things differently.

Because he is Bengali and as stupid as shit.  

The problem is not inequality but insecurity—financial and cultural.

Ukrainians are currently very insecure. But they haven't turned against democracy precisely because their elected leader is showing valor and political skill.  

Bardhan notes that antidemocratic movements have taken root globally in a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic groups.

Does he also note that this happened thousands of years ago? 

In the United States, older, less-educated, rural populations have withdrawn from democracy.

Nonsense! There have been academic studies of the puzzle posed by the fact that, in America, poorer rural populations, with much lower access to health care, nevertheless have the same voter participation rate as wealthier urban populations  

But in India, the prevailing Hindu Nationalists enjoy the support of educated, aspirational urban youth.

as well as educated rural folk- if they are Hindu and if the BJP has a good local 'booth management' network. However, a good CM- like Naveen Patnaik- can stay in power decade after decade simply because he remains the best at doing what he does.  

And in Europe, antidemocratic populists firmly back the welfare state (but for nonimmigrants).

What this cretin means is that people he doesn't like- whom he calls 'anti-democratic populists'- support things which are popular so as to get elected.  

What is consistent among antidemocrats is fear of losing what they have.

Whereas pro-democrats worry that they might not be mugged. They ring up George Soros and ask him to spend a few hundred million dollars getting 'progressive' D.As elected so that all the muggers are released from prison.

That could be money but is most often national pride and culture and the comfort of tradition.

Pro-democrats often demand the immediate abolition of their own mother tongue. They aren't happy unless the Head of State regularly wipes his arse with the national flag.  

A World of Insecurity argues for context-sensitive responses.

But it is itself a context insensitive response to an imaginary problem.  

Some, like universal basic income schemes, are better suited to poor countries.

Which don't have the money for any such thing.  

Others, like worker empowerment

i.e. entrepreneurs running away 

and international coordination,

the U.N takes over the Post Office so that all letters are destroyed immediately irrespective of country or region. 

have broader appeal.

To shitty academics teaching nonsense. 

But improving material security won’t be enough to sustain democracy.

Democracy will disappear if material security disappears. Failing to improve the thing is a reason democratic politicians get kicked out of office. Tenured Professors, on the other hand, are welcome to babble nonsense all the live long day.  

Nor, Bardhan writes, should we be tempted by the ultimately hollow lure of China’s authoritarian model.

This is like saying we should not be tempted by the ultimately hollow lure of being sodomized and beaten to death in a prison camp because... urm... Amartya Sen would get jelly.  

He urges liberals to adopt at least a grudging respect for fellow citizens’ local attachments.

Don't wipe your arse with the Stars and Stripes even if you are an emeritus professor at Berkley.  

By affirming civic forms of community pride,

Bardhan wears ass-less chaps to support Gay Pride 

we might hope to temper cultural anxieties before they become pathological.

Will Bardhan affirm civic forms of Hindu pride? No. He and his ilk are pathologically anti-national.