Reviving the Sacred Market

When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization, he famously replied "I think it would be a good idea" (if the West were to act as civilized as they claim to be). The same response can be apt to the question of what to think of the so-called free market, as extolled by so many modern uber-capitalists (even after the 2008 bank crash). It sounds so nice. The market described by them is an engine of prosperity, a bottomless pit of wealth-creation that rewards those who operate on innovation and ingenuity to serve the consumer. The reality though is anything but.

The globalized market of today is an ugly, inefficient, lifeless mess. It functions, through endless streams of advertising propaganda, to create insatiable demand among misinformed customers while ignoring their crucial needs. In fact, until the rise of public relations in the early part of the 20th century, courtesy of Edward Bernays, the demand-based economy as we see today didn't event exist. The supermarkets of the world, with their aisles and aisles of largely useless items, gives an illusion of choice. But underneath this veneer is the truth that much of the diversity of items found in locations across the world has given way to mass standardization. Visiting a mall in Saudi Arabia or Malaysia, with the exception of the absence of skimpy clothing, is hardly much different than visiting one in France or the US. Both are incredibly crass, spiritually vacuous, and reek of artificiality.

This free market is far from free. It encourages hoarding, allows collusion between mega corporations to rig and manoeuvre the market, and favours larger multinational monopolies over small local business. It periodically jeopardizes the public welfare at private expense through what the business sector refers to as 'externalities'. On a larger level, it functions as a cover for the pyramid scheme known as global finance.


Contrast this with the humbly elegant markets that existed for much of Muslim history, and you will realize what we have lost. The true free markets of the Muslim world, of which only a few remnants remain, were vibrant centers that pulsated with life and energy. The hustle and bustle, the pungent aroma of spices, the arresting sight of colourful pigments and dyes, the cacophony of the haggling merchants, all contributed to make the Muslim market a unique sensory experience. The real jewels of the medieval Muslim world were not the Taj Mahal or the Hagia Sophia. They were the fez cap makers of Tunis and the spice traders of Cairo. They were the Kapali Carsi of Istanbul and the carpet dealers of Isfahan. Commerce was the hallmark of Muslim civilisation.

Yet there was a sense of sacredness to Muslim commerce. The market would traditionally be located in close proximity to the Masjid, and this was not by accident. There was no dichotomy between earning a lawful income and performing salah, between the mundane activities and the holy, all were considered worship. Our Prophet (pbuh), himself a merchant, spoke of the high station granted in Paradise to righteous merchants, and trade was an important vehicle for propagating the faith to all corners of the world.

The principles of the Muslim market were beautiful in their simplicity. There were no market barriers to access for any prospective merchant who wished to ply his trade. There would be minimal intervention by the state in the market activities, except mainly to verify the accuracy of weights and measures, quality of the goods and the purity of the coinage. Prices would not be fixed, as this violated the tenet that demand and supply are forces under the control of God. In fact, the entire ethos of market participation was to foster a sense of independence from worldly actors and a pure submission to the Almighty, a far cry from the 'paycheck mentality' of today.

The reason the market thrived was that it was an organic product of the community that surrounded it. Major crime was rare. The customers and fellow merchants would all be family members, friends or close acquaintances. This communal aspect predominated over economic considerations much of the time. For example, it was not uncommon for a shopkeeper to close shop early once he had earned a sufficient livelihood for the day, to give his neighbouring shopkeeper a chance to make his earning. This would be unthinkable nowadays. This symbiotic relationship between the market and tight-knit community can explain why both suffered simultaneously in the post-colonial phase in Muslim lands.

Traditional bazaars relied on the fraternity and integrity of the merchants to survive. Rather than external government pressure, harmony was maintained through a sense of solidarity and internal control nurtured by the faith. But times have changed. Even the most basic market actions, such as the classic price bargaining (with an assortment of verbal and non-verbal cues depending on the time of day and seniority of the customer) have largely disappeared.

While Muslim modernists seem wholly fixated on retrofitting the existing financial architecture to transform it into the ideal 'Islamic economy', they often ignore the centrepiece of the market. Re-establishing the classic Muslim market is essential for any effective programme to combat riba. The idea of the market is not dead, but its spirit lies dormant within the Muslim communities, waiting to be revived.

Some encouraging efforts have been made in this regard. I will like to call the attention of all readers to an upcoming event planned by the UNRIBA campaign on 23 August to discuss with some local and international freemarketeers over their attempts to return to the classical market. Their work is inspiring, but more needs to be done by the rest of us. It's high time we brought back the market.

Please click here for more information on the event.

Being a Techno-skeptic is a good thing

I have expressed my reservations earlier in the blog over the use of smartphones. But I will admit that a certain part of my hesitancy to purchase one has been personal bias; I find the multitude of Apps superfluous and distracting, the wiggling gestures of our fingers on the touch-screen looks plain silly, and the degree of hyper-connectivity afforded by smartphones invades what's left of one's private life. Having said all that, circumstances may force their hand and I may have to swallow my pride and get one of those darned machines. My caution is not simply restricted to this piece of gadgetry, but other types of technology as well. It's the reason I proudly proclaim myself to be a techno-skeptic.

Techno-skepticism is a philosophy that states that new technology must be critically analysed and judged before being adopted. Claims of new technology must be proven, pros and cons must be discussed, and the adoption process must be slow and measured rather than rushed and clumsy. For the techno-skeptic, the onus is on the technology to justify itself as contributing something of significant value to one's life and to not be an unnecessary adornment. Whether it is the latest product on the market or in vogue is irrelevant.

Techno-skepticism should not be confused as the irrational fear, hatred or rejection of all new technology (that's technophobia). Rather, it is a thoughtful and pragmatic approach to technology that takes a holistic view. A certain degree of suspicion can be healthy.

Two factors are of paramount importance for techno-skeptics: simplicity and humanity. Simplicity is not to suggest that we resort to living like cavemen. Technology that paves an easier path to accomplishing our objectives shouldn't be rejected, but technology that adds extra layers of complexity and confusion should be balanced against its return value. Very often, a simpler and properly designed device can be as helpful as a more complex one. The finer points of older technology often go unappreciated once they are chucked away.

The second factor is to remember that technology is meant to serve human beings and not the other way around. To uncritically accept new technology without any consideration for the larger social, communal and even spiritual ramifications can be hazardous. Technology that only ends up dehumanizing us is quite simply not worth it no matter how flashy it seems.

Technophiles who indulge in blind love and almost pseudo-worship of any new device on the market can fall easily prey to false claims and marketing tricks. Such people have an almost utopian worldview when it comes to technology, that any human desire can be satiated, any inconvenience dealt away with, and any obstacle overcome as long as there's a device designed to do so. Techno-skeptics are thus in a noticeable minority, while lust for technology has become the cult of the majority.

Employing the techno-skeptic approach in your own lifestyle can yield surprising results. I can list a few examples, but perhaps you can be a bit creative and think for yourself. You may take for granted how much time and effort it takes to cater to all the devices in your daily routine, and may not realise how burdensome it has become. Or, more likely, you may think I'm a crank and nostalgic and perhaps should be writing about something else.

Is this really 1914?

For those historical-minded among us, we recently witnessed the Centennial Anniversary of the commencement of World War 1, which began on 28 July 1914. More than any event in modern history, WW1 was truly epoch-changing in its consequences. Prior to the war, the world was divided into competing empires, each Crown gaining its legitimacy through an appeal to a higher religious claim, be it the Ottomon Muslim Caliphate, the Christian Eastern Orthodox Czar of Russia or the Catholic Church of Western Europe. Post-war, and 9 million deaths later, there was an entirely different landscape: secular nation-states replaced imperial strongholds, and a religious world order was done away altogether. The partitioned Muslim world in particular is still reeling from the effects of what was known as the "The War to End All Wars" (which it clearly was not).

With its 100th anniversary, many Western historians still ponder as to what exactly caused this breakout of war, even if they are agreed that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was the trigger. Yet an even more interesting discussion is taking place; are we at the cusp of a new global conflict? With nuclear-armed Russia and NATO at seeming loggerheads over Ukraine and civil war, bloodshed and anarchy spread over much of the Middle East, the situation seems quite precarious. The ingredients seem there. Yet much of the prognostication over whether we may be heading for WW3 or not (for example, here and here) also has at its heart an idea an interesting conception of history, that history is patterned.

In the ancient world, the vision of history was either one of decline (that history has departed from a glorious utopian age to gradually one of increasing ignorance and decadence) or cyclical (history will continuously experience peaks and troughs, rises and falls). Only in the modern West over the last 500 years did we begin to view history as one of progressive incline, with each era being more enlightened and just plain better, be it in the areas of scientific knowledge, material well-being or cultural sensibilities.

As history marches onward, and with each passing century, we can look back and reflect on how far we've trodden. In these moments of reflection, we are struck by the occurrence of seminal events that echo those which have occurred before or after by almost a century.  Major events which occur at around the same time in one century often have a parallel event at approximately the same year in the century that has passed or is to come. Are the parallels mere coincidences, or do they suggest that there are deeper patterns to history that we have yet to uncover?

A classic example is the dual assassinations of U.S. Presidents Abraham Lincoln (1865)  and John. F Kennedy (1963), both with far-reaching implications. The presidents were elected to the House in 1860 and 1960 respectively, and both purportedly assassinated by assassins with three names you are likely to remember (John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald). Both also were known to dabble in some interesting monetary experiments, in Lincoln's case being the Greenbacks, and Kennedy by issuing silver certificates. The more you dig beneath the surface, the more similarities arise.

In the early 1870s, the world powers, headed by the British Empire, at the time colluded to introduce the world's first international gold standard, allowing for convertibility of paper money into gold by a fixed standard ratio. Conversely, this time period is marked by historian as the exact peak point of British power, following which the empire when into imperial decline and steadily experienced a loss of financial capital and dominance. Nearly a 100 years later, in 1971, the super power of the time, the USA, made the decision to do away with the gold standard altogether, now having the dollar alone as the reserve standard for the world with gold no longer functioning as money. Strangely, the exact period is also seen by analysts as the peak of US dominance, with the de-industrialization, deregulation and Reagonomics slowly but surely whittling the might of the super power following that.

Not all parallels have to be exact matches, many are opposites as well. In the same way that 1914 ushered in a time of conflict between competitive nation states, nearly a 100 years earlier in 1815, the Congress of Vienna was held in Europe to settle the Napoleonic Wars, with a diplomatic settlement leading to a century of peace and prosperity in the region between the colonial powers.

There are many, many more example to bring up of history repeating itself in significant ways. Moving to the present moment, there is in the background undeniably a sense of foreboding, that the troubling hotspots in different parts of the world are only a sign of larger conflagration to come, threatening to engulf all of Mankind. Perhaps this may seem a tad fatalistic though. In the end, we also must believe in human agency as being able to set our own destiny, and the destiny need not necessarily be destruction. Nevertheless, what we can expect soon to come in the world stage are events that will likely dictate the course of the next century, assuming human beings survive that long. As the Chinese may have said, "may you live in interesting times."

The Secularization of Money

Paper money was created by the Devil. At least, according to Goethe.

The famous German writer and statesman Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832) wrote the two part epic of Faust, considered one of the finest works of German literature. In Faust, readers are told the story of a young scholar Faust who wagers his own soul in a deal with Mephistopheles (Shaytan) for the ability to allow him to fulfill his desires on the Earth.

In the second part of the epic, Faust and Mephistopheles attend the court of a ruler whose empire is in financial doldrums and stagnancy due to deflation. Noticing that the medium of currency is gold, the Devil convinces the ruler to adopt the use of paper money (issued as promissory notes in exchange for gold yet to be unearthed from the ground). While at first seeming to restore the kingdom to financial health, in time a paper-printing bonanza leads to excessive spending and further problems.

The scene here in Goethe's Faust was seen to be a commentary on paper money usage during the French Revolution. However, the link between money and the sacred implied during the story hints at something far more profound. What made precious metals like gold and silver so revered, so special that they functioned as money for so long, and why was a shift from them considered such a perversion?

Secular and Sacred

The term 'secular' seems to be vastly misunderstood today. Secularization is a process of demystification and desacralisation, to render something as ordinary and exclusively worldly. It is a process that can take place in politics, economics, and even in normal everyday life. Secularization is not anti-religious but irreligious. It is framed not in opposition to religion and Revelation but in complete ignorance of it altogether.

The sacred is the opposite, it is a worldview that entails that processes and items of this world are suffused with a extra-dimensional aspect of blessedness beyond the mere appearance. The spiritual and the transcendent are aspects of reality that cannot be measured or quantified but nevertheless are vitally important.

From the secular perspective, what we see is what we get, and that is that. Sacredness is sucked out of reality as if through a vacuum cleaner, and whatever is left behind is to be valued in terms of its mere utility and human convenience.

It is erroneous to assume that money has somehow escaped the secularizing process. In my previous article, I briefly explained the transition from commodity-based money to their modern paper and digital counterparts. This transition didn't take place in a vacuum, but as part of a larger secularizing change undergoing mankind where religion ceased to be an active force in public life, and in the larger political and economic spheres, including the monetary. Any analysis on monetary history that doesn't recognize the spiritual value of both gold and silver, and how they were stripped of this quality, is incomplete.

Special Metal

The natural world has always been averse to the presence of metals. A stroll through a forest or woodlands will never reveal metal objects, which tend to remain hidden in mines or underground (the 'womb of the Earth'). Exceptions to this rule were both gold and silver, which on the riverbeds and in sandy deposits would reveal themselves openly to the World, and were hence viewed as "an extra-natural state of metallic existence" in the words of Seyyed Hossein Nasr.

Until modern times, gold and silver were seen as hallowed objects with a connection to the spiritual realm. The ancient Egyptians were renowned for their decorative use of gold on their holy sarcophagus's. According to the Jewish tradition, when God gave Musa (pbuh) the Ten Commandments, He also instructed him to construct a Sanctuary and tabernacle for His worship, saying, "thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold around about" (The Power of Gold, 2000) Silver was also used as a traditional healing element, even to this day.

It is well known that the gold Dinar and silver Dirham were the standard means of currency for most Muslim history. Allah (sbt) in the Quran mentions gold and silver as items of natural value for mankind. "Beautified for people is the love of that which they desire - of women and sons, heaped-up sums of gold and silver, fine branded horses, and cattle and tilled land. That is the enjoyment of worldly life, but Allah has with Him the best return." (Surah Al-Imran, 14) Beyond this, gold and silver possess Paradisiacal qualities given the numerous references to the presence of the metals in the Afterlife in the Quran and Hadith. Yet modern Muslims conveniently overlook these references and their deeper implications.

The ancients recognized the coming of an Iron Age when civilization will adopt a ubiquitous use of metal (think bridges, cars, skyscrapers, etc). This was considered as the last age of human history and a time of untold misery and immorality. Yet the predominance of this metallic state of life has led paradoxically to a devaluing of gold and silver as only anachronisms to the modern man.

Current Debate

In the Muslim world, there is a burgeoning movement to bring back the use of Dinar and Dirhams to ensure that the economy conforms to the Shari'ah, and this faces stiff resistance from Muslim defenders of paper money. Much of this debate focuses on whether money should have intrinsic value and how money should be free from the effects of inflation.

These are no doubt important points that should be brought up, but the spiritual element of money is also a dimension that needs to be emphasized to ensure that the dialogue regarding money in Islam it itself not expressed in solely secular terms. The value of gold and silver is not just gained due to scarcity and shininess, but the value is itself a gift from the Divine. To acknowledge this requires us to remove the modernist blinkers put on us by centuries of economic indoctrination.

We must come to accept that using gold and silver in the market is not just a economic transaction, but an act of worship, and paper can no longer be considered an adequate substitute.

Highly Ethical, Deeply Immoral

Do you consider yourself a good person? Is it because you pay your bills on time, don't lie on your tax forms, and avoid crossing a red light? Or do you think there is more to being a good person?

Part of the myth of progress is the assumption that we as moderns have reached the apex of ethical judgement, that we have crossed the path from barbarism to civilization. In other words, we have evolved from a state of crude moral attitudes to one of advanced cultured sensibility. This prejudice towards the past is not as pronounced as it used to be, with the slow-moving collapse of much of modern society giving many a reality check. What lies at the root of this collapse I feel is the confusion over two key concepts of ethics and morality. They are not the same, and a conflation of the two is only a symptom of a larger problem.

What is the difference?

Who is considered 'good' used to be objectively understood. 'Goodness' was a quality that was recognizable based on an individual's character and conduct. Yet today, the universality of goodness no longer seems to be there. Whether you acknowledge someone as good depends heavily on whether you come from a ethical-based mindset or a moral-based mindset.

Ethics (from the Greek 'ethos' meaning custom or habit) relates to the rightness and wrongness regarding the rules of conduct for a person as determined by their society, group or culture. The thrust behind it is that certain types of conduct are either approved or disapproved based on society's understanding of them. Ethics are externally defined by others, and as such are more flexible in the application depending on social, legal and professional perimeters.

Morals relate to the belief of the inherent goodness/badness of our actions and intentions based on higher principles. Morality transcends typical social and cultural boundaries and usually remains less subject to changes or alterations. Morals usually connect to deeply held beliefs of a higher order of existence and the denial of a morally neutral universe.

From the above, it is clear that the most highly ethical person may not necessarily be following any moral code whatsoever, whereas for a deeply moral person choosing to follow an ethical code depends on the degree to which that code corresponds with his or her belief system. Ethics in essence is an externally manifested code while morality is internally driven.

A Bit of History

Ethical theory from Aristotle onwards and throughout the ancient and medieval periods had a strong teleological emphasis, focusing on discovering the best path for life so as to reach a final goal for mankind. Religion provided a deep source of guidance in this effort. The Abrahamic traditions in particular sought their ethical inspiration from the Revealed Texts. Ethical obligations were derived from the moral precepts of Divine Inspiration, and in many cases from their legalistic frameworks as well. Indeed, until the 18th century, "this conviction that there is a divine source of absolute ethical obligation remained almost unchallenged in the history of ethics." (A Brief History of Ethics, 1968)

With the agreed foundation of the Divine as the source of all moral authority and ethics, there was still a wide spectrum of thoughts on how ethics should be formulated, for what intentions and what are the best ways of fulfilling ethical obligations.The range of opinions of philosophers, theologians and scholars from Plato to Al-Ghazzali to Aviccena to Thomas Aquinas is too vast to be covered here in sufficient detail though.

Things began to change with the onset of the secular age. Beginning with William Ockham in the 13th and 14th centuries, the idea was expounded that "moral good or and evil have nothing to do with the internal character of man or his action but rests on the external attribution of a moral quality." (A Brief History of Ethics, 1968) This marked a radical departure from previous theories, in a way externalising the judgement of moral actions rather than looking at morality from what is within.

Gradually, with the emergence of the Deist philosophy in England, ethics was detached from religion as a subject of study, implying that religion may not be the sole source of guidance. Instead of God, "the general will" (or la volonte generale as stated by Rosseau in The Social Contract), which is the collective judgement of the people on moral and social issues, became the criterion for ethical standards. From here emerged a major strand of ethical thought that persists today: utilitarianism (doing something with the intention of the maximizing of social benefit at the least social cost).

The bottom line was that ethical norms were ceasing to be conditioned by moral upbringing, and more by social conventions and pure reasoning.

Where Does that Leave Us?

The modern world concentrates on ethical guidelines with an almost tacit acceptance that long-standing moral norms are no longer publicly relevant. Ethics itself has been reduced to manual of best practices for organized social behaviour rather than a means of moral elevation. There is a difference between being a good worker or a good citizen and being essentially a good human being. You can have individuals who follow all the rules that society puts before them meticulously, but in the end have a vacuum where a soul should be.

The British columnist Peter Hitchen, wrong though he may be on many issues, was correct is stating in his book The Rage Against God that, "to be effectively absolute, a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter." The idea that we are in a morally neutral universe with no objective standard of good or bad is an anathema; yet in much of our day to day functioning, that in practice is how we live our lives. At the very least, knowing the distinction between ethics and morals is important for realising that when it comes to human behaviour, all that glitters is not gold bullion.

The Global Culture of Complaint

One of the supposed comforts of the modern globalized world is the sense of familiarity one feels as one travels from one end of the world to the other. There is a degree of reassurance in entering a new country and encountering a new language, yet still recognizing McDonald's golden arches or Nike's big swish. As a frequent traveler myself, I cannot help but notice the cultural standardization hasn't stopped at brand names, but has crept into personal traits as well. And one cultural denominator that I find particularly irksome is what I call the global culture of complaint.

We moderns complain too much. What was once the preserve of catty grandmothers, how now become an all-too-common feature among even the more reasonable and well-placed folk of today. The complaining I speak of is not the voicing of legitimate concerns, nor the healthy venting of built-up grievances, nor constructive remarks aimed at individual or social betterment. What I am talking about is the knee-jerk cribbing about every perceived mishap or inconvenience, the perpetual whining about affairs that do not directly concern the person, and the endless knit-picking over minor details. In a modern world awash in every sort of technological advantage you can think, with unprecedented access to all manners of comforts and luxuries, we have developed an almost pathological tendency to let the world know when we don't feel all is well.

This is not to say that the modern world doesn't present its own unique set of challenges, from traffic jams to computer hardware issues, that can be taxing on our nerves. But complaining over the smallest matters has become so habitual and so socially acceptable so as to be unnoticed. If people actually had the presence of mind to monitor their conversations, they may be surprised of the size of their complaint quota. Gone are the days of the stiff upper lip, when sabr (patience) was upheld as a virtue and the dictum was, "If you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all." Now displays of patience are conflated with being passive, or worse, being a doormat. So the world suffers from an overdose of this verbal diarrhea as a result.

What I find specifically undesirable about this trait is the inherent negativity behind it. A large portion of the complaints we utter may be things that to a positive mindset would be overlooked, or simply viewed as too insignificant to draw attention to. It takes a special breed of person to constantly look at the glass half empty, to view the world through a lens of imperfection. Similar to the boy who cried wolf, whinging constantly also cheapens actual complaints of merit. When a wise sage voices some complaint, on the other hand, people do take notice.

I have listed below just some common causes for the complaint culture based merely on my empirical observation of people-to-people interaction. It is by no means exhaustive, but hopefully sheds some light on why we blather about this problem or that:

Entitlement Attitude - The modern generations have taken the credo of 'more for less' to mean 'demand more from society for as little achievement as possible'. They have fostered an entitlement attitude whereby receiving treatment lower than a certain standard is viewed as a violation of the social contract. As a rule, expectations from others are given preference to responsibilities towards others.

Inflated Sense of Self-Worth - Connected to the first point, people nowadays have nurtured egos the size of Jupiter. (Just look in the dictionary at all the words listed beginning with 'self'' to give you an idea of how self-obsessed, no pun intended, the modern world can be). Some slight problem arises and the instant reaction is to treat the matter as some manner of personal attack, to take umbrage at the disrespect towards our royal presence. This is quite commonly visible at some fancy restaurant with the waiter on the receiving end.

Too Soft - The average middle class lifestyle now exceeds the more princely lifestyle of perhaps a century ago. The modern world has cushioned us to a large extent and shielded us from tougher realities outside of our bubbles. Once we taste a hint of discomfort, either with the aircon malfunctioning or food blander than we would like, we cannot restrain ourselves in voicing displeasure, we simply haven't been conditioned to do so. No wonder the caliph Omar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be please with him) recommended occasionally walking barefoot.

Ingratitude - A deep sense of gratitude in the Divine Providence grounds a person and lets them encounter many obstacles with resolve. A grateful person will be content even as the ship passes through troubled shores so long as it does not capsize. Lack of gratitude produces the opposite: insecurity causing one to lash out at every occasion. Without counting your blessings, the focus dwells on unmet desires while ignoring the far more important needs God has already taken of.

Boredom - Complaints can be a form of conversational junk food are tasty to indulge in, but ultimately are empty of any beneficial substance. People like to share their complaints with each other in group-talk; once our friend or colleague starts complaining, it can be quite addictive, and frankly, fun. But complaining for the sheer thrill of it is merely a symptom of a bored mentality and a vacuum of constructive thought.

Helplessness - People who feel they are unable to change their circumstances for the better sometimes have no other outlet but to put their frustration to words. This can be useful to vent out unhealthy energies from within, but one should avoid making it a defining characteristic. Turning to God in times of desperation is a far better alternative.

We are all guilty to some extent of indulging in this complaint culture. But exerting a measure of self-restraint and digesting our grievances rather than spitting them out wouldn't kill us. Try it for yourself and see how hard it is to not be a complainer.

The Distance Between Power and the People

In 1989, President Ronald Reagan was on the way out of the White House, and delivered a lofty farewell address in which he famously referred to the USA as the "Shining City on a Hill". In essence, the USA he portrayed was a beacon of good hope and prosperity to all who looked at it with envy from the outside. Of course, in the course of over two decades, with Reagonomics having run its logical course and the economy in tatters, the country no longer projects the same level of awe as it used to.  Still, many cling to the gold-tinted vision of America of old, as the final refuge for democratic and egalitarian values in a world of turmoil.

A recent study should be a wake-up call for those still holding such a view. Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page look at public policy decisions on a national level in the US from 1981-2002 and found that public opinion has almost zero effect on decision-making. Instead, the levers of power are firmly in the hands of the elite business section of society who are able to pay off politicians to the extent that the views of a majority of citizens are near negligible. How negligible? Well, this graph shows that regardless of the percentage of support by the public on an issue, from  0% to 100%, the chances that the policy will be enacted stay the same.

In summation, the entire structure of the political system can rightly be described not as a democracy but as an oligarchy, a dirty word usually reserved for the Russian state of the 90s. For any political observer with a modicum of insight, this is hardly a groundbreaking revelation. The fact that special interests dominate the political scene is demonstrably obvious. The effect has only been more acute in the past several decades when campaign finance laws have been relaxed and businesses can fill in the coffers of government. While this study is merely a confirmation of that fact, it is still striking to the extent to which public opinion matters so little.

One wonders when this hard fact will sink into the collective consciousness of the American public. And when that happens, what will be the response? Will there be a call to reform? Or a collective disillusionment?