Posts
The Illusion of Self-Governance
(First posted
in February 2010, Revised in March 2019)
Introduction
The objective of this note is to
discuss whether people’s sovereignty truly and effectively exists in the
political life of democracies currently practiced. People’s sovereignty is
understood for the purpose of this essay as the governance of the people by the
people, i.e. people’s supremacy in public administration. The use of the term
democracy is avoided in this note to the extent possible; because of the many
different ways it is understood, defined or practiced in different places, at
different times, and by different people, for different purposes. It is hoped
that, by such avoidance, those who give their own meaning to the term will not
be able to do the same with the statements in this note.
A historical summary of the
progression of the concept of people’s sovereignty is given below as a backdrop
to the discussion in this note. An historical method may not be found original,
unless we realize that the distinction between the past and the present is
fictitious. The present immediately becomes the past, therefore, it is so
minute, we can consider it either non-existing, or, consider the past
continuing to exist in the present. It is more realistic to view the past and
the present fused in a continuum. Therefore, the past and the present are
presented in this note as the “evolving present”. Based on the experience of the "evolving present", I offer some observations on the state of the current practice in self-governance. As for the future, it is the "unknown", unlike the past and the present which are "knowable". Therefore, the future requires reasoned prediction (vision) and imagination. Accordingly, the future is presented here as “reasoning”.
A selection of the dialectic on the topic is provided in the Annex, so are the thoughts of two greatest political leaders who fought for people’s sovereignty, T. Jefferson and M. K. Ataturk.
A selection of the dialectic on the topic is provided in the Annex, so are the thoughts of two greatest political leaders who fought for people’s sovereignty, T. Jefferson and M. K. Ataturk.
The
Evolving Present
First period - Religious supremacy ( ? -1579)
The center of the universe for the
thinking specie is him/herself. The world’s and life’s meaning, for all
practical purposes, is his/her own security and prosperity. Men created
religions because of uncertainty of security and prosperity, to remedy the pain
from poverty, inequality, and oppression. Then the temporal power saw benefit in
recruiting the power of religion for its own purposes. Religions welcomed the opportunity of using the temporal power as expedition forces paving the way for the expansion of their faith. The divine authority
coupled with the temporal power of Rome, upon Rome
While the theocratic despotism
continued throughout the 16th century, Luther raised objections to some Christian traditions within the clergy. Calvin (1536 - Calvinism) and Henry VIII (1584 - Anglicanism) followed suit. Religious wars broke out in Europe until these factions agreed to recognize each other's existence with the Augsburg Treaty of 1555. However, the new system entrusted the choice of people's religion with the ruler of the countries. Thus started autocracy.
Religions, certainly unable to solve
the earthly problems, concluded that security and happiness are not realizable
in this world and shifted that expectation to an unknown space, to afterlife.
Religions’ credibility then became questionable among the people. Rulers
possessing the power of religion over the people did not want to let that power
go easily. Catherine de Medicis of France Rome
Scientific discoveries, which started
with Copernicus’ theory of the
universe (1512), also challenged the traditional beliefs in Christianity. In
the 17th century, many were burnt at the stake by Vatican , like Giordano Bruno of Italy
Thinkers of the 16th
century -More, Erasmus, Montaigne, Bodin- started the dialectic on “Rights
of Men”. They could only explain it with a metaphysical determinism and dualism: the
ruler ruled with the authority delegated to him by God.
Paradoxically, during the same period
that the West was awakening from the religious oppression, the Ottoman might in
the East, in the person of Ferocious Sultan Selim I, repeated a comparable
blunder Romans did 1500 years earlier, by acquiring the mantle of Khalif (the
Muslim religious authority) after invading Arab and Egyptian lands in 1517.
Sultans started to rule by the Koran. While the West was trying to get out of
the dark ages, the East was entering it.
Second period - Rights of Men,
Enlightenment (1579-1790)
Finally, the Westphalia Treaty of 1648 (credited for ending the so-called thirty years of religious wars, in fact ending one hundred and thirty years of religious wars) ended the divine right of rulers and opened the way to state supremacy, the nation-state. Cromwell spearheaded the first uprising in England
The Enlightenment period took about
two hundred years since the declaration of Vindiciae before public sovereignty could finally become the general
rule of law. The period that started with the clergy and continued with autocracy ended with state authority, may it be delegated by people instead by God. People's sovereignty could not yet become the supreme authority.
Freedom of thought was proclaimed as a general public will, and put on paper for the first time in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The revolution against the despotic rulers produced the French (Lafayette’s) Bill of Rights in 1790, and the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791.
Freedom of thought was proclaimed as a general public will, and put on paper for the first time in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The revolution against the despotic rulers produced the French (Lafayette’s) Bill of Rights in 1790, and the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791.
Enlightenment ideas developed from
Hobbes to Paine were: The ruler was not a natural or a divine phenomenon but
was created by Men to provide protection to them. The individual is sovereign,
but sovereignty is delegated –not transferred- to the ruler to enforce God’s
law. The general will will be the guardian against an abuse of power by the
ruler. Everyone, by absolute natural right, is the master of his own thoughts,
but sometimes certain “inconveniences” will result from such an extensive
liberty. Change by force will undermine democracy and freedom, moderation is
suggested between freedom and authority for the sake of peace. Freedom should
be controlled by an educated society, and by justice; common good can be
achieved not by fictions like social contract and natural rights, but by
education and social institutions. The separation of powers, parties and
religion also prevent full working of democracy. Reasoning and rationality is
required. Finally, the notion emerged that the social contract was entered not
between the ruled and the ruler but between the ruled, and it was called the
constitution. Governing was not for its own sake, or for national
prejudice, but it was for national peace and national interests. (For details
see Annex).
Third period - State supremacy (1790-1945)
Napoleonic wars that followed the
French Revolution spread the liberation of men and of the mind in Europe, and
in many parts of the world, e.g. nationalist movements in South
America and the Balkans. The ensuing nationalism,
industrialization, colonialism, mercantilism, and militarism plundered the
world and subordinated men, this time, to state interests, for about hundred
and fifty years from the American and French Constitutions until 1945 peace treaties of WWII.
During this period, men in large part
did not live for the religious authority or the ruler any longer, but did not live for
himself either. He/she lived for the state and its ambitions for world
domination, despite the Bill of Rights.
The thinkers of the period that laid
the groundwork for the next stage were from Hegel to Gramsci: People continue
to be followers rather than leaders of society. States must hand over supremacy
to the people in order to avoid violence. The general public is not trusted to make
decisions because religion dominates the emotional side of society;
intellectuals who will include religious emotions must rule. The will of the
people is that of the majority, and yet any power is illegitimate; individual
liberty is necessary for progress. The power of public opinion in democracy
will suppress individual liberty. State authority backed by force cannot
survive. Popular support is necessary, which requires a mass education. Men’s conscience is related to society, he decides
what is best for the common good, government intervention must be minimal; this
system will universalize, and nation-states will disappear. The improvements in this period were the protection of liberty and equality of the people, but of course by the state, the so-called social liberalism propounded by Keynes and Dewey. (For details
see Annex)
Fourth period - Corporate supremacy (1945-2...)
1945 WWII peace treaties made good on
the failed attempts of 1815 Vienna Congress, and of 1920 League
of Nations to internationalize the rights of men. The UN Charter
was adopted in 1945, and Human Rights Treaties, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights followed. Although these developments brought forward the importance of individualism, human rights did not
globalize as easily as capital, labor, trade, and most importantly,
communication did. The globalization of economy took precedence over the
globalization of individual’s rights, including the right to prosperity. Men’s freedoms and rights were exploited
by the economic juggernauts manipulating the politicians.
At this time, although state supremacy ended, men are not yet totally free from states that continue their military ambitions. People do not yet have full control over a type of governance with a view to globalization of human rights that would lead to global prosperity thus global peace.
Thinkers of this period, from Adorno
to Rorty, tried to find practical solutions to the problems of democracy
foretold by their predecessors: People cannot agree on a common good, thus
cannot have a common will, because of their ignorance of issues. Groups, like
parties and pressure groups, fill in this vacuum to manufacture a common will. Political parties do not act for public welfare but for
political power. There is a need for rationality: governance by civil
discourse, where citizens are able to evaluate and criticize policies
and contribute to rational decision making. Citizenship and political agency
form collective identity and direct participation in political action. Religion in politics is far from disappearing; democracy requires dialogue; dialogue and reasoning cannot take place unless religion also is debated in the public square. Dialogue
will keep the people informed and secure their participation in politics.
Uncontrolled modernization will undermine solidarity; cultural sources, like religion, will move in to establish solidarity. Opposition to freedom, democracy and constitution will not be
tolerated; a compromise will have to be reached between the religious and the secular
for a shared political culture.
Hence, the struggle in the Middle Ages between reason and faith became between rationalism and empiricism; in the present, it turned out to be between knowledge/intellect and tradition/culture. The sides in the battle essentially remained the same, changing only their cover. (For details see Annex)
The
ills of the present practice of self-governance
It is clear that the rational
thinking of the 16th to 18th century awakening opened the
way not only to discoveries and science but also to changes in the system of
governance. The political system changed from theocracy to aristocracy, to
militocracy, to autocracy, and as of the 19th century to plutocracy,
to democracy. However, even these current systems remained oligarchic, in the hands of powerful minorities forming a timocratic or ochlocratic administration. After more than four hundred years, since man ‘gained
conscientiousness’ of his rights, the power over his rights never fully did get
into his own hands.
Still today, man is not the sole
owner of a complete, absolute, and unconditional power over his own governance,
after almost five hundred years of accumulation of knowledge and trying to free
himself from the grip of extraneous powers. He surrenders his powers now to the
majority, or even to minorities because of flaws of election systems, and/or to influential groups. In the absence of measures against the
abuse of power by majorities and interest groups, he loses trust in the rule of
law, and in state. Instead, he needs to admit that the ills of the system are
due to the absence of adequate civic education, and its expansion to the
entire population.
1) The majority despotism
If a political party that comes to power with legitimate election claims to represent the whole population, i.e. with no recognition of the minority, it is no different than any other type of autocratic regimes. It is the tyranny of the majority under the guise of democracy.
The party that comes out of the ballot box as the winner,
assumes that the majority represents the national will, and that the party has the
unchallengeable mandate to lead the people. The fact that the electoral mandate
establishes an employer-employee relationship between the people and the
leader, and that the leader is the servant of the people, has not yet find to date universal recognition. In
reality, ballot box alone does not determine either the national will, or
“democracy”. There are an increasing number of examples that ballot boxes can produce
chaos, or dictators. In instances where “democracy” means the voting right alone, governance is nothing else but a
rule by one group of society at best, and by an autocrat at worst. Among
the most recent and prominent such ballot box winners, who publicly
pronounced democracy as the “election right expressed from election to
election", who assumed the majority opinion as the general will, are Bush the
Second and the Ottomanist Turkish PM. This type of leadership assumes to have
received from the public a blank check placed in the ballot box.
Another reality is that the ruling
authority does not even represent the majority of the people in most of the
representational systems. The best participation in elections is about 80%, and
in many cases, there is also a multitude of political parties further dividing
the votes. It is not therefore unusual that some governments rule with as
little as 30 per cent of public support. Such cases are not even a majority rule,
but that of minority. Group supremacy is then oligarchic, which is anathema to
equality, justice and the rights of men. A country governed by a portion of its
society alone cannot be defined as democratic.
People, expecting the benefits of
taxes paid, are becoming increasingly demanding for public and social services
by the central government. Extended social services by governments necessarily
involve more government intervention, and centralization of authority. On the other hand, those elected to the central legislature are bound with party
discipline and their constituents’ local interests. Therefore, legislatures ought to be of the stature to know how to
compromise multitudinal interests. Hence, the majoritarian system and centralization of authority have
a somewhat symbiotic relation.
Furthermore, scrutiny of government
by public is much harder in a centralized administration. Shielding the central
authority from public scrutiny helps a ruler to become autocratic.
In an effort to soften the bitter
pill of “democracy”, there is an unfortunate tendency, even in academic
circles, to suggest that there are different types of “democracy”, and that the
majoritarian democracy is one. This is an effort to accommodate, or to explain
away the practice lately developed by some leaders for their own purposes. It
would be a more honest approach to stand firm on a clear incontrovertible
original definition of democracy and assign different names to differing
practices of it. Calling democracy something that is not serves the shady
purposes of leaders who intentionally take advantage of the term for their
political ends.
Richard Gamble's observation in "Fatal Flow of Internationalism: Babbitt on Humanitarianism"(Humanitas, Vol. IX No. 2, 1996), that just more democracy without clear definition does not achieve peace, is very true.
Richard Gamble's observation in "Fatal Flow of Internationalism: Babbitt on Humanitarianism"(Humanitas, Vol. IX No. 2, 1996), that just more democracy without clear definition does not achieve peace, is very true.
2) The special interest groups’
influence
Pluralism was thought to be an answer
to the ills of “democracy”, but it did not necessarily turn out to be so. (For details see R. Dahl
contribution in The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, Oxford University Press 1993)
From among many civil society groups,
religious establishments are also given the right to meddle in politics under
the protection of freedom of religion and of speech.[2]
Conversely, politics is ferociously attacked if it were to meddle in religion.
Political speeches everywhere are interspersed with subtle or direct references
to one scripture or another, in order to be politically correct. Politicians
tow the line of religion in order not to endanger their election by drawing the
wrath of religious voters. Policies are shaped also according to the beliefs of
politicians or of their constituents.
Religion is expressly excluded from
politics in few constitutions, such as in India ,
Kazakhstan , Russia , and Turkey Brazil ,
Italy , Poland , Spain ,
and Switzerland Vatican Vatican
Most “democratic” countries, facing
the strong grip of religion on the majority of the people, chose a compromise
by introducing secularism. Although the
political philosophy evolved towards the supremacy of rationalism over
religion, this distinction was blurred first in the Anglo-American legal system
by including swearing on the Bible in the initiation for official duties and in
court procedure.[3] The
practice of claiming the separation of Church and state (the so-called
secularism) on the one hand, and invoking religion at every turn of politics on
the other (politicians’, leaders’ and courts’ statements) is pervasive.[4]
This is nothing short of the recognition of two equal sovereigns, religion and
people.[5] Secularism, in fact, means dualism. It is not
the separation of religion and politics in the real sense of the word and
intent. It is a mere compromise that did not serve the purpose of “democracy”.
Secular democratic politics put more emphasis on freedom of religion, and
non-interference of politics into religion, than on freedom of politics from
religious influence, and non-interference of religion in politics. So long as
religions consider divine law’s superiority over popular law, people will be
unable to reconcile their religion with their sovereignty.[6]
Political parties fall into the same
category of ideological groups as religious establishments. They ought to be general interest groups, not
special interest groups. Furthermore, parties are
given the monopoly over the election. This position does not only give more
power to parties than other groups, it also opens the way to their corruption
by other ideological groups. Political parties supposedly reflect, but also exploit and
consequently harden class, religion, language, gender, or ethnic differences
and conflicts. In reality, their priority is to fight for the perpetuation of
the party ideology and for grabbing the governmental power (particracy). They drown the
public’s voice on substance with the high decibel noise they make in
inter-party dogfights. As such, they do not serve “democracy”, they corrupt it.
The increasing public disgust of politics and of politicians in almost all
countries is the direct result of the party system.[7]
Capitalism, a byproduct of
“democracy” and a major engine of modernization, is increasingly seen as an
arrogant greed machine that relates any social issue into a feigned economic
solution. Business groups are omnipresent in all political issues in the name
of public interest. Corporations represent corporations’
interests in the disguise of the benefit of national economy. The
influence of big corporations in politics is very visible, in that they legally
or illegally finance political activities, like elections or political debates.
A relatively new phenomenon that enhances the corporations’ influence on
governments is the contracting of public services to the private sector, with
the supposed benefits of pruning government excesses and improving efficiency.
And, I am not talking here about contracting out cleaning services or
construction work for public premises; but substantive work like intelligence
services crucial to the security policy of a country.[8]
The practice of contracting public services to private businesses allows a close intimacy between corporations and governments, thus removes the distinctions between public and private. Special interest groups pit the "tyranny of special minority" (oligarchy) against the "tyranny of majority", the danger that was foreshadowed by de Tocqueville and Mill. When corporate leaders, not indirectly but also de facto, enter in the business of governance the system is corrupted to become a timocracy, as we witness in some present day countries.
Special interest groups’ involvement in politics also nurtures corruption. While the use of force in politics is illegal, the use of power of money is not; it is even legalized in some countries under the name of election campaign contributions, or lobbying. In other words, allowing interest groups to participate in politics corrupts politicians, corrupts politics, corrupts “democracy”.
Special interest groups’ involvement in politics also nurtures corruption. While the use of force in politics is illegal, the use of power of money is not; it is even legalized in some countries under the name of election campaign contributions, or lobbying. In other words, allowing interest groups to participate in politics corrupts politicians, corrupts politics, corrupts “democracy”.
3) The absence of intellectual preparedness to
ward off group preponderance
The core issue underlying the failure
of people’s supremacy in governance is the type of education or the lack
thereof. The intellectual vacuum is filled by any power that sways authority;
the majority and special interest groups are the major such powers.
Specialized professional/vocational
education for a materialistic world helped chase away humanistic social
education. A. T. Kronman makes this case abundantly clear in his Education’s End,
Yale Un. Press 2007 p. 197. Religious establishment usurped humanistic and
social education. Social issues and humanistic values became the monopoly of
the usurpers. The same may be said for the Muslim countries where madrassas
claim authority in pseudo-humanities. French writer, J. Castagnary’s outburst
against the position of religionists is noteworthy (W. Lawhead, The Voyage of
Discovery, Wadsworth 2007, p. 382).
Overwhelmed by the power of religion
over the people and by the fact that neither people nor religions will let go
that grip, some thinkers have been advising a balance between the
rationalism/liberalism of democracy and the determinism/traditionalism of
religious autocracy. The policy of globalization of “democracy” pursued by
“democratic countries” since WWII also prescribes balancing different interests, carrying a rational dialogue and compromise as an operation manual to
“democracy”. However, balances between rival interests are achieved only for a very short term;
dialogues may continue endlessly without results; compromises in most cases
compromise the interests of many. Compromises do not provide full satisfaction
to any; they only delay solutions. On the one hand, religious dogma has no room
for skepticism and reasoning. On the other, rationalism has no room for
distorting the facts in order to accommodate deterministic and traditional
view. As Leslie Lipson wrote in Ethical
Crises of Civilization (Sage 1993), critical thinking (reason, logic)
cannot co-exist with unquestioning belief; you cannot go in two different
directions at the same time. Rationalism’s success and victory over blind
belief can be achieved by a sound humanistic education. He added, democracy
cannot survive in a non-democratic society. The quality of the government in a
country is in direct relation with the quality of the education of its people.
People who have a better knowledge and judgment are, obviously, in a better
position to govern themselves.
It has always been the practice of
all governments, despotic or “democratic”, to keep the populace ignorant for
the sake of re-election and for holding a firm grip on power. People are not
fit to govern themselves where they are kept uneducated in general and
uninformed in civics in particular (see C. Brinton, p.211, and J. S. Mill On liberty, pp. 117-118)
4) The population growth
Unlimited population growth adversely
affects the core of the entire social/civil system. It exacerbates all three
problems mentioned above. Men became men’s enemy in the increasingly crowded
and at the same time technologically interconnected world. Individuals consider
others as a threat to their security and prosperity; they feel as if the world
is closing in on them. Nevertheless, while absolute social equity may not be
achievable, social security and peace must be achieved.
Reasoning
for the Future
Old forces do not entirely disappear
in a new period; they are the foundation of the present and the seeds for the
formation of the future. There is no break in between. Accordingly, we live and
make the future unavoidably in the synergy of old ideas, practices and
experiences.[10]
Real sovereignty of people over their
own governance could be achieved if governance could be insulated against the
adverse influences of the above listed impediments. Admittedly, such solution
would require bold actions, and may only last until men find yet other ways to
corrupt the new system.
1) Community level administration
The combination of majoritarian
system and centralized governance provides fertile ground for an authoritarian
rule. Decentralization of as many as possible administrative matters would help
avoid the majority domination in most areas of social conflict.
Self-administered and self-sufficient communities would not be subject to
making compromises for finding a nationwide common ground. For example, with
the exception of nationally important matters like security, general education,
transport and communication, most public services may be administered by
smaller communities at the local level as long as they are economically viable.
People will feel more associated with the use of their tax money, and the
actions taken would be more appreciated by the community. Close oversight of
public services is easier also when they are administered locally.
Consociational democracy, designed
basically for ethnically or culturally diverse societies, may be useful in the decentralization of public services. This system avoids majority or minority tyranny by spreading power centers, and can achieve a more just distribution of public funds (See Arend Lijphart, O. C. to Politics of the World p.188-189).
Both the public and the politicians
must understand without equivocation that people’s participation in politics is
not limited to election, it includes continued scrutiny of administration. Of
course, leaders should also be reminded that the reins of power are constantly
in the public’s hands, not only at election time. Leaders are not bosses; they
are servants. They need to be reminded that people rule, are not ruled. This is
what sovereignty, hence self-governance means. Delegation of the "exercise" of sovereignty does not mean delegation of sovereignty. Sovereignty is
indivisible and cannot be delegated, its exercise can be.
A majoritarian system may be replaced
by consociational system. Majority despotism is a systemic, procedural, and
qualitative problem of democracy. It will be difficult to end the majority rule
per se; but a transformation towards decentralization would be more acceptable
to the public and will go a long way to minimizing the effect of majority
despotism, and maximizing the self-governance.
2) Banning from politics special interest
groups with ideological or financial power
The decentralization of government
and transfer of as many administrative functions as possible to local
communities may constitute a major solution also to the special interest
groups’ influence on self-governance. For example, peoples’ embrace of religion
is mostly due to fear from poverty and security, because religious
establishments offer social services, help and shelter to the disenfranchised,
to those who feel crushed under the weight of powerful establishments. If such
help were to be provided by the community, instead of by religious
establishments, the poor and the needy would relate and associate rather with
the former.
Businesses constitute part of the
population and represent their interests. While the argument is made that all
parts of the population should be represented in political decision formation,
businesses possess monetary power that the other groups do not. A teachers’
organization cannot compete with business organizations. Groups that sway financial power have an unequal edge over other groups. They should not be
allowed to influence politics, like the military –which has the firepower- is
not allowed to partake in politics.
The participation of civil public
organizations in the formation of politics must be subject to clear criteria to
exclude those that represent ideologies rather than public interests. Banning
all special interest groups based on ideologies, like religious organizations
and ideological political parties, from participation in politics, and in political
decision-making would be the ultimate achievement. Groups, as juridical
entities (not real persons), do not have the right to vote. Why should they be
entitled to participate in politics, to influence decisions, and skew the electorate’s
will? Divisive ideologies must be replaced by humanist culture.[11]
The enhancement of government
transparency, of social media, and of public auditing measures also will
contribute extensively to reining in the power of special interest groups.
Although, considerable public
awareness and even outrage has developed in recent years against the corporate
influence on politics, and against turning national issues into a feud between
political parties, it would be too optimistic to expect a public will to
coalesce anytime soon to disband special interest groups from politics. Even if
a strong enough public movement were to succeed to put an end to religious and
business influences, it will be impossible to improve the political party system;
because such a decision will need to be taken by the political parties represented
in parliaments.
3) Public education and information
Self-governance cannot function at
its best if public does not believe in people’s sovereignty, in people’s
supremacy over all else. The public must have absorbed people’s sovereignty as
a matter of culture, for self-governance to function free from external
influences or from its organic defects. The public must have knowledge of the
history, characteristics, culture, safety and security needs, economic
interests, among others, of at least their immediate region beyond their own
community in order to be able to make a useful contribution to public
administration. A profound change in education to include civic and humanities
subjects, is needed to achieve such an objective. Civic and humanities education
should be national; it is vital for the formation of a national identity,
solidarity, general will formation, peace and security.[12]
An ill-informed society in politics
as well as an uneducated society in civics and humanities is led by the
government; a well-informed society leads the government. This is possible, of
course, if public were kept informed
continuously of on-going administrative decisions and actions. Unqualified government transparency is a sine quo non of self-governance.
A well-informed society ensures
individuals’ economic freedom, freedom from the influence of power groups, from
majority despotism, and even from the government. A society thinking free from
any extraneous influence is a civilized society, contributing to paving the way
to the universal civilization.
“The numbers participating in an
election are all important. But equally important is the wisdom that guides the
vote. Democracy can be self-destructive if electorate is ill informed or
manipulated by one-sided propaganda. For popular sovereignty to work well in
practice, everything depends on the level of education of the mass of the
people. The quality of every democracy is the quality pervading the mass of its
citizens.” (L. Lipson, Lecture at the Ataturk Society of America, Library of Congress,
Nov. 24, 1998 )
Education of masses in humanities
will liberate men from the influence of powers. The current inadequate type and
quality of education is a fundamental, organic and qualitative problem of
political systems around the world. Yet, there is not a general awareness of
the problem. People are more interested in professional and vocational
education for economic reasons, and politicians prefer an uneducated and
uninformed public that they can manipulate easier. Therefore, civic and humanist
minded masses will be very difficult to develop, and will necessarily take a
long long time to come.
4) Controlled population growth
A social and scientific solution to
the problem of population growth is long overdue. There has always been a
public awareness of it, also at the international level for many different
reasons. The international concern over population growth may help expedite a
solution for it.
Conclusion
Despite five hundred years of humiliation in the
hands of one or another despotic system, and the efforts of some political philosophers
and few leaders to free them, men could not yet master his sovereignty. All
systems created by himself were and are being used to subject him to other forces than to his own. Even the present system of, so-called, “democracy” is but wool over his
eyes pulled with dissimulation. If men continue to assign
priority to prosperity instead to knowledge, thus acquiesce to the relegation of
his most important right –sovereignty over his governance- to power groups, he
would be destined to live prosperous but not free. If men were knowledgeable
and well informed, and act communitarian but think universally, they may
minimize any incursion of their rights, hence maximize their freedom in addition
to their prosperity. The cumulative knowledge of the “present” should be
sufficient for men to identify themselves with their community and with human kind
as a whole, instead with state, religion, or groups as they did thus far.[13] Since all have no choice but to share the space and resources of the earth, they cannot but negotiate and cooperate on how to share fairly, lest to do it unfairly by use of force. Standing at the edge of the frontier of knowledge, men must gather the
necessary power and courage to reset their course towards their destiny.
July 2013
[1] W. Ebenstein, Introduction to Political Philosophy, p.113, and Crane Brinton, The Shaping of the Modern Mind, Mentor Book 1959 p. 50.
[2] Ninian Smart, Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, Oxford University Pres 1993 p. 778-779
[3] Vazsonyi, Heritage Lecture #779 on March 19, 2003.
Justice Abe Fortas of the US Supreme Court in Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience, The New American Library
1968.
[4] K. Phillips, American Theocracy, Viking 2006 pp. 123, 211
[6] See Secularism
and the Separation of Church and State, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com.
[7] L.
Diamond, The Spirit of Democracy, Times
Books 2008, p. 345
[8] Bruce
Clark, Washington Monthly, Jan/Feb
2010, p. 44
[9] Sam Vaknin,
Globalization - Liberalism’s Disastrous
Gamble, American Chronicle, June 25, 2007
[10] Alejandro Serrano Caldera, Brief Reflexion on Culture, Translated from Spanish by Jean Tardif
- revised by Paule Herodote, Forum 06.01.2005)
[11] Leslie Lipson, Ethical Crises of Civilization, 1993.
[12] Baroness
Warnock, contribution in The Oxford
Companion of the Mind, Oxford University Press 1987, p. 207
[13] Crane Brinton, p. 159
Annex to “The Illusion of
Self-Governance”
Discourse on Political Development
From Religious
Obscurantism To Enlightenment 1579-1790
The rediscovery of the
ancient thought of individual as an entity of the polity occurred necessarily
among the European clerics who could read and study the ancient Latin and
Greek, such as J. Wicliff (English cleric who denied the Eucharist,
1384), Johann Huss (Rector of university of Prague, who was burnt at
stake for propagating Wicliff doctrine, 1415), M. Luther (German monk who
was excommunicated by the Pope for questioning some Christian practices, 1520). (W. Ebenstein, Introduction to Political Philosophy,
Rinehart Co. 1952, p.111 [IPP]). J. Calvin (French cleric who had to go
in exile in Switzerland
Renaissance in art and
literature followed. Thomas More (Lord Chancellor, who was beheaded for
refusing to take an oath to the Act of Supremacy of the King, 1535), Erasmus
(1469-1536), and Montaigne (1533-1595)
could now express the value of Men – humanism was born. They thought life was
made miserable by despotic rulers. Life was in fact good if freedom and justice
prevailed. Bodin wrote in 1576 in Les Six Livres de la Republique, “sovereignty
is the absolute and perpetual power of the state”, but the ruler is under a
moral obligation to the community and to God, he has no authority to violate
the laws of God and nature, therefore there should be rational belief in God
above any particular church or organized religion (IPP pp.118-119).
[This first step was
nothing less than releasing Men’s conscience from the grip of religious
autocracy, and the realization of self consciousness. Reformation allowed the
human mind to think beyond the religious dicta, to express himself, to create,
and to develop. But, the thinkers of the 16th century could not
break away from the determinism and dualism of metaphysical thinking introduced
by Luther. They tried to explain Men’s rights within the context of the ruler’s
authority delegated to him by God.
In the ensuing period of
Enlightenment, thinkers first tried to explain the authority of the monarch
outside the religious realm, then finally recognized individual’s sovereignty. However, in practice, the dualism of
the temporal and the religious authorities over people lingered on.]
Hobbes, Leviathan 1651: He saw the ruler not as a natural or a divine phenomenon, but as created by Men to provide peace with full authority. This was the first attempt to disrobe
the ruler from his religious mantle, while still preserving his absolute
sovereignty. (IPP pp. 124,125)
Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, 1670: People rationally authorize the sovereign to protect their interests. General will and reason will be the guardian
against an abuse of power. The individual’s freedom is not affected, because
he transfers his rights to the ruler freely by social contract. Everyone is by
absolute natural right the master of his own thoughts, but certain
“inconveniences” will, no doubt, sometimes result from such an extensive
liberty. (Steven Nadler, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on line) [SEP].
Locke, Two Treaties of Government 1690: The society is established by contract, but government by delegation, people remain supreme with the right to rebel
against the ruler. (IPP p. 140)
Voltaire, Traite sur la
Tolerance 1763: Democracy is governance by uninformed masses. Enlightened monarch would achieve progress, as progress is in his own interest. (Wikipedia)
Rousseau, Discours 1751 and 1755, Contrat Social 1762, Emile 1762: The social contract secures liberty from
despotism, the exercise of individual freedom forms the general will to submit
to law; majority represents the general will, majority rules. (C. Mouffe, Politics of the World,
OU Press 1993 p. 139) [PW].
Hume, Essays Moral and Political in 1744, Political
Discourses 1752: He calls for moderation and balance between individual
freedoms and the rule of law. (Wikipedia)
Burke, Vindication of Natural Society 1756, Reflections on
the Revolution in France 1790: People must have freedoms, but revolutionary methods are disruptive (PW, p 791). There must be a controlling power (IPP p. 167). But the controlling should not be by them. (Frank O’Gorman, Edmund Burke – His
Political Philosophy, G. Allen & Unwin 1973, p. 55)
Bentham, Fragment on Government 1776, Principles of Morals and
Legislation 1789, and over 100.000 pages of manuscripts: Differences between personal interests and the common good can be bridged by education and a system of chandelling people to social purposes (IPP pp. 172,173), Universal election rights without party politics (IPP pp. 174, 176), and without interference by religious institution. (IPP p. 178 )
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man 1792, The Age of Reason 1795: Social contract is entered not between the ruled
and the ruler but between the ruled, it is called the Constitution. Governing
is th product of the Constitution. It is for national
interests and universal peace. (T. Paine, Rights of Man, Hugh
Griffith, Barnes & Noble 2004 edition, pp. 65-67 and 197)
State supremacy - Rights of Men subordinated to state interests 1790-1945
Hegel, Philosophy of History, and Encyclopedia of Political Sciences 1820-30: Individual liberty is found in dedication to the state. (IPP p. 197-199)
De Tocqueville, Democracy in America 1840: Individual liberty is potentially under threat also in democracy, under the power of public opinion against which there is no controlling power. Democracy encourages industrial growth to improve living standards. But industry widens the inequality and does not have public responsibility. (IPP pp. 185, 187, 188)
Thoreaux, Civil Disobedience 1849: Social consensus is not a guarantee for people supremacy over state. Resorting to political violence as a solution is questionable. (Rick A. Furtak, SEP)
Comte, System of Positive Politics 1851-1854: General public cannot be trusted to make
decisions, intellectuals must rule and include emotional (religious) side of
the people. (W.F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery, Wadsworth Cengage Learning 2007 pp. 463,464)
Stuart Mill, On Liberty 1859, On Representative Government 1860: Liberty is the Civil or Social liberty, which is delimited by the majority. The only power that could avoid majority oppression is the government, if it is "above mediocrity". (On Liberty, Appleton Century Crofts 1947 pp.1, 4, 66, 94)
Samuel Smiles, Self-Help 1860: The character of a nation is what determines the nature of its government. (Crane Brinton, The Shaping of the Modern Mind, Mentor Book 1959 p. 165)
Marx, Capital 1873, Manifesto of the Communist Party 1988: Industrialization causes class conflicts, rationality
ends, working class will prevail. (K. Marx & F. Engels, The Communist
Manifesto, International Publishers 1948, p. 10-11)
T.H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics 1883: Common good is what holds societies together;
government intervention must be minimal; this system will universalize, and
nation-states will disappear. (Colin Tyler, SEP)
Gramsci, Prison Notebooks 1926-1937: State authority by use of force cannot survive,
popular support by a conscientious society and intellectual elite is necessary. (PW, p. 361)
Corporate supremacy - Rights of Men subordinated to
economic interests 1945- circa 2050
J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy 1950: People cannot agree on a common good, and cannot
have a common will, because of their ignorance of issues; groups, like parties
and pressure groups, fill in this vacuum to manufacture a common will, which is
the product -not the motive- of political process and democracy. Political
parties do not act for public welfare but for political power. (J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harper & Brothers 1950, pp. 251, 261, 263, 283, 296,298)
Popper, The Poverty of Historicism 1961: Democracy is possible only by governance by civil discourse, where citizens
are able to evaluate and criticize policies and contribute to rational
decision making. (Stephen Thornton, SEP)
Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty 1969: Democracy can only lead to totalitarianism not to liberty. (PW p.139)
Arendt, Public Rights and Private Interests 1977: Political action is the result of collective
identity. Direct participation in political action can be achieved best through
“a federated system of councils”.(Maurizio P. d’Entreves, SEP)
Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion 2008: Uncontrolled modernization will undermine
solidarity in society; cultural sources, like religion, help solidarity; both
religious and the secular must reason to find a balance. (Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion, Polity Press 2008, pp. 107, 111, 116, 122, 126-127, 130, 138)
Rorty, Reply to Jeffrey Stout in The Philosophy of
Richard Rorty : There must be political compromises. Religious communities have no tolerance for disagreement. We have to pursue a strong secularist policy. (The Library of Living Philosophers, Open Court 2010, p.549)
Two modern-times leaders who instituted the supremacy of
men’s rights
T. Jefferson
Jefferson promoted 1) men’s rights are inalienable; 2)
government is formed by the consent of people to protect those rights; 3) republic
as the only form of government to protect men’s rights; 4) government to
implement the general will equally without violating minorities’ rights; 5)
people’s control over government and their power to change it if it does not
respect men’s rights; 6) the three governmental powers are independent from
each other; 7) powers are bound by rules lest they become oppressive; 8)
legislation cannot be for perpetuity that may bound the next generations; 9)
religion in private domain, must be kept out of legislation; 10) the world is
governed by God’s laws. (
M.K. Ataturk
Ataturk promoted 1) national progress, unity and
will to achieve national objectives; 2) the state that belongs to the people as
their protector; 3) rights for every individual; 4) citizenship united with
nationality not with religion; 5) people’s sovereignty without conditions,
limitations, participation or equivocation; 6) sovereignty expressed in
legislative, executive and judiciary powers; 7) government by the people, who
transfer their rights to the republic for securing their freedom and
independence, government needs power and authority to protect individual’s
freedom; 8) legitimacy of government depends on how well the national will is
represented; 9) people’s responsibility to oversee the government in order to
avoid governmental oppression; 10) the art of governing is to know the degree
of necessary limitation of freedoms; 11) informed people so as to avoid
wrongful actions; 12) knowledgeable people to elect the right representatives;
13) people’s participation in the universal civilization. (S. Kili, The Ataturk Revolution-A
Paradigm of Modernization, Turkiye Is Bankasi 2003; and Ari Inan, Düşünceleriyle Atatürk, Türk Tarih Kurumu 1999)
July 2013
