The Democratic Republic
This is a developing exercise - the subject is more complicated than we might
realize and the exercise is to examine and develop thought relative to it.
realize and the exercise is to examine and develop thought relative to it.
References:
Ernest Gellner, Culture, Identity and Politics
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism
John Dunn, A History of Democracy
Pierre Manent, A World Beyond Politics
Jorge Dominguez and Anthony Jones
(editors), The Construction of Democracy
Charles Tilly, Democracy
Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom
(For Starters)
Ernest Gellner, Culture, Identity and Politics
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism
John Dunn, A History of Democracy
Pierre Manent, A World Beyond Politics
Jorge Dominguez and Anthony Jones
(editors), The Construction of Democracy
Charles Tilly, Democracy
Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom
(For Starters)
Assumptions and Concerns
Our (Western but particularly American) view of "democracy" is
simplistic. We don't understand it well and we don't appreciate
what we have. Nor do we understand the difficulties others have
of achieving it.
A democratic republic is - must be - far more than a voting
process, and even the voting process is developing strange
symptoms. (Rule of Law, respect for property, Free Enterprise,
along with rights, RESPONSIBILITIES and MUTUAL RESPECT
come to mind.
Democracy is fragile and to survive must be nurtured.
There is a vast difference between theoretical governing via the
democratic process and achieving a viable democratic republic.
Some of the theory is also simplistic.
The democratic process entails the participation of people, and
people are not always easy to control; specifically, they see things
in light of their own self interest - differently.
Ignorance is not a good foundation for democratic process, and
the worse the ignorance the weaker the foundation.
Our (Western but particularly American) view of "democracy" is
simplistic. We don't understand it well and we don't appreciate
what we have. Nor do we understand the difficulties others have
of achieving it.
A democratic republic is - must be - far more than a voting
process, and even the voting process is developing strange
symptoms. (Rule of Law, respect for property, Free Enterprise,
along with rights, RESPONSIBILITIES and MUTUAL RESPECT
come to mind.
Democracy is fragile and to survive must be nurtured.
There is a vast difference between theoretical governing via the
democratic process and achieving a viable democratic republic.
Some of the theory is also simplistic.
The democratic process entails the participation of people, and
people are not always easy to control; specifically, they see things
in light of their own self interest - differently.
Ignorance is not a good foundation for democratic process, and
the worse the ignorance the weaker the foundation.
Karl Marx, quoted by Pierre Manent, wrote “security is the supreme
social concept of civil society; the concept of the police. The whole
society exists only in order to guarantee for each of its members the
preservation of his person, his rights and his property.”
That is as good a place as any to begin, for without security - order - a
society is going to have a great deal of trouble becoming democratic.
Colloquially one might say it is difficult to remember you were draining
the swamp while being forced to fight alligators.
social concept of civil society; the concept of the police. The whole
society exists only in order to guarantee for each of its members the
preservation of his person, his rights and his property.”
That is as good a place as any to begin, for without security - order - a
society is going to have a great deal of trouble becoming democratic.
Colloquially one might say it is difficult to remember you were draining
the swamp while being forced to fight alligators.
A useful concept to understand is that for participation in
government there must be a foundation that supports it and
three pillars of that foundation are education, the nation state
and modernity. Actually each impinges upon the others.
Furthermore, since "the people" are involved in the
democratic process, their self interest will be a paramount
consideration; self interest cannot be exercised without order,
which is half of what Marx was talking about; the rest is
dependent on what we now refer to as nation states.
Self interest, after all is said and done, entails economics
and economics in today's world means modernity, which
entails education, division of labor, rule of law, respect for
property, and free enterprise.
The other piece of the democratic pie is respect of the rights
of individuals including freedom of speech and association -
but also of the checks and balances of power.
Many words and concepts, easy to roll off the tongue but not
always easy to comprehend in reality - especially when they
come into conflict, as they inevitably will. And more to the
point everyone tends to view them through their own prism of
self interest, thus what they mean to one may not be quite the
same as what they mean to another, which takes us back
around again to order and rule of law - but also knowledge,
and education.
government there must be a foundation that supports it and
three pillars of that foundation are education, the nation state
and modernity. Actually each impinges upon the others.
Furthermore, since "the people" are involved in the
democratic process, their self interest will be a paramount
consideration; self interest cannot be exercised without order,
which is half of what Marx was talking about; the rest is
dependent on what we now refer to as nation states.
Self interest, after all is said and done, entails economics
and economics in today's world means modernity, which
entails education, division of labor, rule of law, respect for
property, and free enterprise.
The other piece of the democratic pie is respect of the rights
of individuals including freedom of speech and association -
but also of the checks and balances of power.
Many words and concepts, easy to roll off the tongue but not
always easy to comprehend in reality - especially when they
come into conflict, as they inevitably will. And more to the
point everyone tends to view them through their own prism of
self interest, thus what they mean to one may not be quite the
same as what they mean to another, which takes us back
around again to order and rule of law - but also knowledge,
and education.
Modernity
Modernity is synonymous today with what used to be known as
industrial society, the only one ever to be based on sustained
growth and improvement; continual improvement that keeps
everyone content - "buying off social aggression with material
enhancement." But that exposes a weakness: it does not survive
downturn well. (Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism) Or as it
was ballyhooed in a recent political campaign, it's the economy,
stupid.
“Industrialization engenders a mobile and culturally
homogeneous society," entailing the ability of people within it to
move from job to job, to learn new jobs and to understand the
rules the technology and the precise communications involved.
This is generally lacking in the essentially agrarian society that
precedes it and explains one of the major difficulties agrarian
societies have in making the jump to modernity - a jump that can
be painful (Gellner, Ibid).
For democratic government to function there is a need to
assemble a number of conditions that come only with difficulty:
existence of a "civil society" and what was once called commerce,
a network of relations that brings people (and investment) together
voluntarily - in search of their own interests (Pierre Manent, A World
Beyond Politics).
Putting these thoughts together makes clear that "democracy"
struggles without a modern basis of understanding at the several
levels of a functioning economy: investment, management and the
working level. No jobs = poverty = discontent. Management
exploitation achieves the same. The two greatest problems in an
developing democratic economy are lack of investment and
corruption - assuming there is law and order.
Letting everyone vote doesn't meet the challenge; it only raises
expectations. If the expectations are not met disillusionment
develops quickly. But how can elected officials deal with the
expectation challenge if they lack the experience - and the
investment base - to do so? And how do they get the experience?
And the investment?
The naiveté of thinking an agrarian society can be led to the polls
and everything will suddenly evolve is frightening.
Modernity is synonymous today with what used to be known as
industrial society, the only one ever to be based on sustained
growth and improvement; continual improvement that keeps
everyone content - "buying off social aggression with material
enhancement." But that exposes a weakness: it does not survive
downturn well. (Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism) Or as it
was ballyhooed in a recent political campaign, it's the economy,
stupid.
“Industrialization engenders a mobile and culturally
homogeneous society," entailing the ability of people within it to
move from job to job, to learn new jobs and to understand the
rules the technology and the precise communications involved.
This is generally lacking in the essentially agrarian society that
precedes it and explains one of the major difficulties agrarian
societies have in making the jump to modernity - a jump that can
be painful (Gellner, Ibid).
For democratic government to function there is a need to
assemble a number of conditions that come only with difficulty:
existence of a "civil society" and what was once called commerce,
a network of relations that brings people (and investment) together
voluntarily - in search of their own interests (Pierre Manent, A World
Beyond Politics).
Putting these thoughts together makes clear that "democracy"
struggles without a modern basis of understanding at the several
levels of a functioning economy: investment, management and the
working level. No jobs = poverty = discontent. Management
exploitation achieves the same. The two greatest problems in an
developing democratic economy are lack of investment and
corruption - assuming there is law and order.
Letting everyone vote doesn't meet the challenge; it only raises
expectations. If the expectations are not met disillusionment
develops quickly. But how can elected officials deal with the
expectation challenge if they lack the experience - and the
investment base - to do so? And how do they get the experience?
And the investment?
The naiveté of thinking an agrarian society can be led to the polls
and everything will suddenly evolve is frightening.
Nation States
Gellner, Nations and Nationalism:
“Nationalism – the principle of homogeneous cultural units as
the foundations of political life, and of the obligatory cultural
unity of rules and ruled.”
“Nationalism has been defined, in effect, as the striving to
make culture and polity congruent, to endow a culture with its
own political roof, and not more than one roof at that…it is in
reality the consequence of a new form of social organization,
based on deeply internalized, education-dependent high
cultures, each protected by its own state.”
All operating democracies are nation states; many non-
democracies are not because they do not meet the above
criterion. Many, and the Arabs in particular, have too many
roofs. Can they ever become true nation states? Can they
ever develop anything close to democratic principles?
Perhaps, but it is difficult to see how they can in anything like
the near future - because they don't want to. But when the oil
is gone? It depends on how much of the world's wealth they
have absorbed, but then what will they do with it? Probably
fight among themselves, destroying it all in the process.
Without nation states as describe above how can
populations achieve modernity? Real modernity, not just the
trappings. If the truth be known even Arab culture is rent - they
can agree on very little, including nation state boundaries.
But Arabs aside, history suggests that only economic
cooperation will suffice in the end. That, in an environment of
desperate self interest, is the ultimate challenge. But it will not
be met without nation states.
Gellner, Nations and Nationalism:
“Nationalism – the principle of homogeneous cultural units as
the foundations of political life, and of the obligatory cultural
unity of rules and ruled.”
“Nationalism has been defined, in effect, as the striving to
make culture and polity congruent, to endow a culture with its
own political roof, and not more than one roof at that…it is in
reality the consequence of a new form of social organization,
based on deeply internalized, education-dependent high
cultures, each protected by its own state.”
All operating democracies are nation states; many non-
democracies are not because they do not meet the above
criterion. Many, and the Arabs in particular, have too many
roofs. Can they ever become true nation states? Can they
ever develop anything close to democratic principles?
Perhaps, but it is difficult to see how they can in anything like
the near future - because they don't want to. But when the oil
is gone? It depends on how much of the world's wealth they
have absorbed, but then what will they do with it? Probably
fight among themselves, destroying it all in the process.
Without nation states as describe above how can
populations achieve modernity? Real modernity, not just the
trappings. If the truth be known even Arab culture is rent - they
can agree on very little, including nation state boundaries.
But Arabs aside, history suggests that only economic
cooperation will suffice in the end. That, in an environment of
desperate self interest, is the ultimate challenge. But it will not
be met without nation states.
Education
Education is the process by which we - however - can hope to
understand. Where it is seen to be not working is the way we are
going about it:
We are trying to pour too much "education" into people not
qualified or interested in gaining it. We must tailor education for
needs and not attempt to make all equal. All will never be equal
and much of education is wasted on those who are not motivated
to gain from it, damaging those who try to teach it and those who
are so motivated.
Too many educators have become social ideologues. They don't
educate they preach. And what they preach is Utopian fantasy.
Why? Because they really don't understand mankind and they
really don't understand reality because many have never really had
to deal with it.
And so what is mankind? A complex blend of selfishness and
selflessness with no rhyme or reason as to which comes out at
any given time.
And what results? Ignorance. Does that not sound like a
profound contradiction? Perhaps it is, but if it is it is because too
many people think about themselves, pleasure and their comforts
and not much else. Do we attempt to elect thinkers who can work
it out for the betterment of all of us? It does not appear so. Instead
we are lulled into choosing those who pander to that about which
we do think: ourselves, pleasure and our comforts. We even
penalize those who would give it to us straight.
And what must we learn? Most will learn only what they wish to
learn, which is: themselves, pleasure and their comforts. A rare
few will be capable of more - and we need them to lead us.
Education must focus on those motivated few capable of
understanding, and assist them to understand what we need to do
to survive. Trying to find those motivated few is the real challenge
of education - and to check and balance their ambitions.
And what, really, must it be that is learned? What works. And
what is that? A Middle Ground that appreciates that people only
work for what is in their interest (essentially capitalism), but in the
process need assistance in getting there and staying there. What
rubbish! But is it? The challenge is and will be in the Middle
Ground: checks to over ambition but reward for the ambitious;
balancing of power among those who would pursue it;
compromising between raw capitalism and irresponsible
socialism; and cooperation, mutual respect and understanding.
It also means determining where government should be
involved and where it should not. Government need only insinuate
itself where there is a clear issue to be defined - preferably in
consonance with our constitution. Too much government, too
much bureaucracy is as dangerous as too little. We are a
federalist state for a reason and those that founded it had insight
that we seem to be losing.
So have I defined a new unachievable Utopia? I have, but it is
something to strive for - to set as a high principle. In the meantime
let's at least look for the best available, and see beyond
propaganda and hunger for power - at our expense. That means a
position that appreciates the value of capitalism but softens it with
compassion while cracking down hard on those that would take
unfair advantage - and using intelligent realism to understand the
difference.
And from whence cometh intelligent realism? Education.
Education is the process by which we - however - can hope to
understand. Where it is seen to be not working is the way we are
going about it:
We are trying to pour too much "education" into people not
qualified or interested in gaining it. We must tailor education for
needs and not attempt to make all equal. All will never be equal
and much of education is wasted on those who are not motivated
to gain from it, damaging those who try to teach it and those who
are so motivated.
Too many educators have become social ideologues. They don't
educate they preach. And what they preach is Utopian fantasy.
Why? Because they really don't understand mankind and they
really don't understand reality because many have never really had
to deal with it.
And so what is mankind? A complex blend of selfishness and
selflessness with no rhyme or reason as to which comes out at
any given time.
And what results? Ignorance. Does that not sound like a
profound contradiction? Perhaps it is, but if it is it is because too
many people think about themselves, pleasure and their comforts
and not much else. Do we attempt to elect thinkers who can work
it out for the betterment of all of us? It does not appear so. Instead
we are lulled into choosing those who pander to that about which
we do think: ourselves, pleasure and our comforts. We even
penalize those who would give it to us straight.
And what must we learn? Most will learn only what they wish to
learn, which is: themselves, pleasure and their comforts. A rare
few will be capable of more - and we need them to lead us.
Education must focus on those motivated few capable of
understanding, and assist them to understand what we need to do
to survive. Trying to find those motivated few is the real challenge
of education - and to check and balance their ambitions.
And what, really, must it be that is learned? What works. And
what is that? A Middle Ground that appreciates that people only
work for what is in their interest (essentially capitalism), but in the
process need assistance in getting there and staying there. What
rubbish! But is it? The challenge is and will be in the Middle
Ground: checks to over ambition but reward for the ambitious;
balancing of power among those who would pursue it;
compromising between raw capitalism and irresponsible
socialism; and cooperation, mutual respect and understanding.
It also means determining where government should be
involved and where it should not. Government need only insinuate
itself where there is a clear issue to be defined - preferably in
consonance with our constitution. Too much government, too
much bureaucracy is as dangerous as too little. We are a
federalist state for a reason and those that founded it had insight
that we seem to be losing.
So have I defined a new unachievable Utopia? I have, but it is
something to strive for - to set as a high principle. In the meantime
let's at least look for the best available, and see beyond
propaganda and hunger for power - at our expense. That means a
position that appreciates the value of capitalism but softens it with
compassion while cracking down hard on those that would take
unfair advantage - and using intelligent realism to understand the
difference.
And from whence cometh intelligent realism? Education.
Let it never be forgotten that education is
and must be far more than classrooms and
lectures. Advice from the knowledgeable is
education; experience is education;
observation is education; reading is
education. And just like the classroom all
is not always correct or complete.
Education is a never ending quest.
and must be far more than classrooms and
lectures. Advice from the knowledgeable is
education; experience is education;
observation is education; reading is
education. And just like the classroom all
is not always correct or complete.
Education is a never ending quest.