The central problem of all modern democracies is that of concentration of power in the hands of the state which has increased in a phenomenal manner in the course of the last five or six decades. What is power? Power can be defined as the ability to do things. As such, power will always have a place in human society. But the usefulness of power is eclipsed by abuses when it is concentrated to such an extent that the community as a whole becomes totally powerless. Second, the concept of the state has also to be defined because power is associated with the function of the state. Some political theoreticians of recent times have defined the state as an organ of coercion, an instrument created by a certain Class or section of society with the purpose of exercising its domination over the rest. The corollary to this definition is that a just and fair social order is impossible so long as the state exists. Therefore, thinking out their thoughts consistently, these political theorists came to the conclusion that in an ideal society the state must wither away. The anarchist denial of the very necessity of the state is only an exaggerated version of what may be called the communist utopia.
The ideal of a stateless society is an obvious absurdity. The most outstanding feature of the communist-social organization is greater and greater concentration of power, political as well as economic. It is very difficult to see how one of the two processes can ever annul the other. The establishment of a communist society presupposes a highly centralized political power. Such unrealistic utopian ideas about the future naturally result from the equally unrealistic, empirically unverifiable doctrines that society is divided into irreconcilable classes, and the history of civilization has been a history of class struggle.
The division of society into classes with diverse interests is a historical fact. But it is equally true that cohesive forces are also inherent in society. The centrifugal tendency is counteracted by a centripetal tendency. In the history of social evolution, an equilibrium between the two created stability, whereas discord and disharmony led either to the establishment of dictatorships or other autocratic forms of government or to social disintegration.
If there was no cohesive force in society, then mankind would have continued in a state governed by the laws of the jungle. The entire history of society shows that the cohesive force has always been more or less in operation; otherwise there could be no history of civilization. Ancient civilizations broke down because the forces of social cohesion and harmony were overwhelmed by strong centrifugal tendencies. Mediaeval and modern history has also been punctuated from time to time by wars and revolutions. But reaching higher and higher levels of social evolution, civilization survived those recurring vicissitudes and regained equilibrium of the conflicting forces.
It is possible to visualize an idealized state when the contradictory forces will disappear and society be a homogeneous organism. Then, there would be no classes, one trying to dominate all others. Yet, society will be there; it will not be a primitive community but a much more complicated organization with greatly diversified fields of activities. Such a society cannot possibly do without a central organization. It need not be a Leviathan, as the state has been described, but only a coordinating factor, one of the various social institutions, the function of which will be to harmonize the functions of the various other institutions.
Primitive communities organized themselves politically much later than their original formation, primarily with the purpose of self-defense and struggle for existence. In the intervening period, progressive human development added to the original functions of society, which was departmentalized according to vocations and professions. Eventually, the state arose to coordinate and harmonize the diverse departments of social activities, so as to promote the welfare of the community as a whole. It was not superimposed on I'm in society or given any totalitarian significance. It was created as the instrument of public administration to maintain order, to make laws and enforce them, so that the diverse forms of social activities could be carried on peacefully. The state rose as one of the several other social institutions, all equally autonomous - economic, educational, cultural.
There was a time when the government did not interfere in the economic life of society. The requirements of the community were met by peasants, artisans, and traders, applying human labor to natural resources, either individually or organized in guilds. Individual freedom and institutional autonomy in educational and cultural fields were particularly beyond the jurisdiction of the state.
The economic advantages of the politically centralized modern society are a doubtful blessing. We can therefore visualize a time when the state will again cease to be the Leviathan which it has become today, without dreaming of the absurd utopia of a stateless society, a society without public administration. But we shall have to search for ways and means to reduce the functions of the state to the minimum, in other words, restore to the native function of an instrument for public administration, to coordinate the various functions of other autonomous social institutions.
There are social philosophers who advocate what is called a pluralistic society, composed of autonomous institutions, the state being one of them, with no other function than to regulate and coordinate their diverse activities. This view of social organization was stated in the nineteenth-century liberal dictum that that government is the best which governs the least. Since then, the tendency for concentration of power has gained ground: as a result, it is not an exaggeration to say that the state has become an engine of coercion. But the point is that it is so not because of power as such but because of concentration of power. So, ultimately, the problem of democratic political practice is that of decentralization. Politically, it may not be a baffling problem. It is aggravated by the centralization of economy, immensely reinforcing the power of the state. In the last analysis, the problem, therefore, is: Can the economy of a modern society be decentralized? And in consequence thereof, also the political power? This is the problem of our time, and it will not do to blink over it by arguing that since it has been so for centuries, how can it be otherwise? The fatalistic view that human ingenuity has been exhausted and the last word of wisdom pronounced implies that mankind is nearly its journey's end and that the perspective is not promising; it is moving toward a social breakdown. With such a negation of human potentiality to evolve, progress, and create endlessly, ''might is right'' will not be only the legal but also the moral law. One can imagine what life will be like in a society ruled by such law, the law of the jungle.
If human freedom is not to be sacrificed in the scramble for power, we shall have to explore the possibility of political practice without the interference of political parties. Because it is through the instrumentality of political parties that power is concentrated in the hands of minorities, to be abused and misused on false pretences. The desired decentralization of power is conditional upon the disappearance of the instrument of centralization. It must be replaced by another instrument, which can guarantee that the sovereignty of the people will always remain with the people.
So long as political parties are believed to be essential for democratic practice, power will be inevitably concentrated in the hands of a few men. Therefore, under the party system, benevolent dictatorship is the best one can reasonably expect, and one also may idealize benevolent dictatorship, but the fact is that it has never existed in the world.
There are people who are above corruption. But politics as it is practiced today repels them. They stay out of the scramble for power because it might corrupt even the best of men. Nevertheless, they are not necessarily unconcerned with public affairs. They try to do small things in their quiet manner, and the cumulative effect of their silent endeavor may keep the morale of society from a complete collapse. To raise politics above corruption, it must be free from the lust for power. A constitutional structure based upon an even distribution of power alone can purify politics, and such a genuine democratic system is possible if the individual is restored to his place of primacy.
Democracy has been discredited first because of the fallacious theory which made for deceptive practice, and second, the practice did not allow that a solid foundation of the democratic state was laid. It placed a premium on demagogy. Those who are dreaming of a better world in which politics will be free from corruption and concomitant evils must apply themselves to the task of laying the foundation of a democratic society. Individual men and women must be conscious of their individuality, conscious of their ability to judge intelligently and discriminatingly all moral and political issues con- fronting them, so that in course of time politicians will not be able to sway them by appeals to base instincts and unbridled emotions, when a growing number of electors will be able to examine the promises made to them by parties at election time and find out whether they are genuine or false. They will be building democracy from the bottom. That is the proper approach to the baffling problem of democratic practice in the modern world: the problem of practicing direct democracy in large states with huge populations. Genuine democracy must be direct democracy. Indirect democracy means delegation of power. And delegation of power means surrender of sovereignty. Unless the democratic state is based on the foundation, not of helpless atomized individuals, but on the foundation of a network of locally organized democracies, democracy will never be real. Decentralization of democracy will prevent centralization of power, and the function of the state will be reduced to coordination of the activities of the other autonomous social institutions.
This process may take a long time. That is the common objection against it. But once we make the choice and begin moving in the new direction, it is not really such a long way as it appears to be. The precondition is to discard the traditional notion of human nature, and to know that it is neither evil nor divine, but that man is essentially rational, that, given the opportunity, every human being is capable of thinking for himself, judging right and wrong, making judgments and acting accordingly. Unless by his own nature, as a biological being, man was capable of thinking rationally and behaving morally it would be a vain dream to visualize a free, just and harmonious social order. For the time being, it is true that the common people are illiterate; they may not be able to govern country. But at the same time, is it not a fact that left to themselves, even the most ignorant peasants can manage their affairs better than our present government? The distrust for the ability of the common people to think for themselves and take care of themselves is only a pretext for seizing power in their name and abusing that power to suppress their liberty.
At election times, all parties go to the people and make promises; they all know that not half of their promises can be fulfilled, but they rely on the fact that the voters cannot understand and therefore can be duped. Can that state of affairs not be changed? It can be. To change this state of affairs is the first necessity, the biggest task for anybody who wishes to participate in politics-not for selfish ends. One need not go to the people only to catch their votes; to help them cast their votes intelligently would be an immensely more important work. The electorate should be asked to examine the programs of all the parties, to see if the promises can be fulfilled or if fulfilled will really improve matters. But this new political practice presupposes a radical change in the idea of human nature. It is an appeal to reason, which presupposes the belief that man is a rational being. Political practice is guided by the notion that the ordinary man cannot think for himself; therefore, he must be persuaded to follow parties and politicians. Since this unnatural relation between the people, the parties, and politicians constitutes the foundation of what is called party politics, the latter prevents the people even to think for themselves. Politics is not only a scramble for power but competition in all manner of questionable practices.
The position may appear to be a vicious circle. But there is a way out which party politicians would not take because that would mean the end of their days. Appeal to reason is the way out. And modern science indicates the way. Science teaches that human nature is not to believe but to enquire, that human nature is rational. It is true that the rational nature of man has been buried very deep. But being the essence of human nature, it can be recovered. Let some people have the conviction and the courage to act accordingly. Let them raise political practice on the level of reason and intelligence. I have no doubt the appeal to reason will and a response. The new politics will bear fruit sooner than one dares imagine; only the measure of success will not be power but gradual disappearance of that evil. Even a few people can lay down a solid foundation of democracy and freedom, if they forego the quest for power, do not participate in the scramble, do not ask for the vote of the people to rule in their name, but, on the contrary, remind the voters of their human dignity, capacity to think, and to act creatively.
Thus, the electorate will gradually become critical and discriminating the time will come when the voters of a locality will tell candidates of all parties to leave them alone; among themselves they will find men in whom they can have confidence and who will remain responsible to them between two elections. Once that happens, the end of the party system will begin, and with the parties, the main cause for concentration of power will disappear. In the process, we shall already have laid down the foundation of a decentralized state of local republics, which will combine all functions of the state as they affect the local life. National culture, national economy, and national political institutions will be cast on the pattern of the functions of these local republics; power will remain with them, to be wielded directly by the individual members of small communities. Being thus reared upon a broad foundation of direct democracies, the state will be really democratic. Usurpation of power will be out of the question. Thus, a pluralistic modem society can be built up at the same time while doing away with centralization of powers political and economic.
The ideal of a stateless society is an obvious absurdity. The most outstanding feature of the communist-social organization is greater and greater concentration of power, political as well as economic. It is very difficult to see how one of the two processes can ever annul the other. The establishment of a communist society presupposes a highly centralized political power. Such unrealistic utopian ideas about the future naturally result from the equally unrealistic, empirically unverifiable doctrines that society is divided into irreconcilable classes, and the history of civilization has been a history of class struggle.
The division of society into classes with diverse interests is a historical fact. But it is equally true that cohesive forces are also inherent in society. The centrifugal tendency is counteracted by a centripetal tendency. In the history of social evolution, an equilibrium between the two created stability, whereas discord and disharmony led either to the establishment of dictatorships or other autocratic forms of government or to social disintegration.
If there was no cohesive force in society, then mankind would have continued in a state governed by the laws of the jungle. The entire history of society shows that the cohesive force has always been more or less in operation; otherwise there could be no history of civilization. Ancient civilizations broke down because the forces of social cohesion and harmony were overwhelmed by strong centrifugal tendencies. Mediaeval and modern history has also been punctuated from time to time by wars and revolutions. But reaching higher and higher levels of social evolution, civilization survived those recurring vicissitudes and regained equilibrium of the conflicting forces.
It is possible to visualize an idealized state when the contradictory forces will disappear and society be a homogeneous organism. Then, there would be no classes, one trying to dominate all others. Yet, society will be there; it will not be a primitive community but a much more complicated organization with greatly diversified fields of activities. Such a society cannot possibly do without a central organization. It need not be a Leviathan, as the state has been described, but only a coordinating factor, one of the various social institutions, the function of which will be to harmonize the functions of the various other institutions.
Primitive communities organized themselves politically much later than their original formation, primarily with the purpose of self-defense and struggle for existence. In the intervening period, progressive human development added to the original functions of society, which was departmentalized according to vocations and professions. Eventually, the state arose to coordinate and harmonize the diverse departments of social activities, so as to promote the welfare of the community as a whole. It was not superimposed on I'm in society or given any totalitarian significance. It was created as the instrument of public administration to maintain order, to make laws and enforce them, so that the diverse forms of social activities could be carried on peacefully. The state rose as one of the several other social institutions, all equally autonomous - economic, educational, cultural.
There was a time when the government did not interfere in the economic life of society. The requirements of the community were met by peasants, artisans, and traders, applying human labor to natural resources, either individually or organized in guilds. Individual freedom and institutional autonomy in educational and cultural fields were particularly beyond the jurisdiction of the state.
The economic advantages of the politically centralized modern society are a doubtful blessing. We can therefore visualize a time when the state will again cease to be the Leviathan which it has become today, without dreaming of the absurd utopia of a stateless society, a society without public administration. But we shall have to search for ways and means to reduce the functions of the state to the minimum, in other words, restore to the native function of an instrument for public administration, to coordinate the various functions of other autonomous social institutions.
There are social philosophers who advocate what is called a pluralistic society, composed of autonomous institutions, the state being one of them, with no other function than to regulate and coordinate their diverse activities. This view of social organization was stated in the nineteenth-century liberal dictum that that government is the best which governs the least. Since then, the tendency for concentration of power has gained ground: as a result, it is not an exaggeration to say that the state has become an engine of coercion. But the point is that it is so not because of power as such but because of concentration of power. So, ultimately, the problem of democratic political practice is that of decentralization. Politically, it may not be a baffling problem. It is aggravated by the centralization of economy, immensely reinforcing the power of the state. In the last analysis, the problem, therefore, is: Can the economy of a modern society be decentralized? And in consequence thereof, also the political power? This is the problem of our time, and it will not do to blink over it by arguing that since it has been so for centuries, how can it be otherwise? The fatalistic view that human ingenuity has been exhausted and the last word of wisdom pronounced implies that mankind is nearly its journey's end and that the perspective is not promising; it is moving toward a social breakdown. With such a negation of human potentiality to evolve, progress, and create endlessly, ''might is right'' will not be only the legal but also the moral law. One can imagine what life will be like in a society ruled by such law, the law of the jungle.
If human freedom is not to be sacrificed in the scramble for power, we shall have to explore the possibility of political practice without the interference of political parties. Because it is through the instrumentality of political parties that power is concentrated in the hands of minorities, to be abused and misused on false pretences. The desired decentralization of power is conditional upon the disappearance of the instrument of centralization. It must be replaced by another instrument, which can guarantee that the sovereignty of the people will always remain with the people.
So long as political parties are believed to be essential for democratic practice, power will be inevitably concentrated in the hands of a few men. Therefore, under the party system, benevolent dictatorship is the best one can reasonably expect, and one also may idealize benevolent dictatorship, but the fact is that it has never existed in the world.
There are people who are above corruption. But politics as it is practiced today repels them. They stay out of the scramble for power because it might corrupt even the best of men. Nevertheless, they are not necessarily unconcerned with public affairs. They try to do small things in their quiet manner, and the cumulative effect of their silent endeavor may keep the morale of society from a complete collapse. To raise politics above corruption, it must be free from the lust for power. A constitutional structure based upon an even distribution of power alone can purify politics, and such a genuine democratic system is possible if the individual is restored to his place of primacy.
Democracy has been discredited first because of the fallacious theory which made for deceptive practice, and second, the practice did not allow that a solid foundation of the democratic state was laid. It placed a premium on demagogy. Those who are dreaming of a better world in which politics will be free from corruption and concomitant evils must apply themselves to the task of laying the foundation of a democratic society. Individual men and women must be conscious of their individuality, conscious of their ability to judge intelligently and discriminatingly all moral and political issues con- fronting them, so that in course of time politicians will not be able to sway them by appeals to base instincts and unbridled emotions, when a growing number of electors will be able to examine the promises made to them by parties at election time and find out whether they are genuine or false. They will be building democracy from the bottom. That is the proper approach to the baffling problem of democratic practice in the modern world: the problem of practicing direct democracy in large states with huge populations. Genuine democracy must be direct democracy. Indirect democracy means delegation of power. And delegation of power means surrender of sovereignty. Unless the democratic state is based on the foundation, not of helpless atomized individuals, but on the foundation of a network of locally organized democracies, democracy will never be real. Decentralization of democracy will prevent centralization of power, and the function of the state will be reduced to coordination of the activities of the other autonomous social institutions.
This process may take a long time. That is the common objection against it. But once we make the choice and begin moving in the new direction, it is not really such a long way as it appears to be. The precondition is to discard the traditional notion of human nature, and to know that it is neither evil nor divine, but that man is essentially rational, that, given the opportunity, every human being is capable of thinking for himself, judging right and wrong, making judgments and acting accordingly. Unless by his own nature, as a biological being, man was capable of thinking rationally and behaving morally it would be a vain dream to visualize a free, just and harmonious social order. For the time being, it is true that the common people are illiterate; they may not be able to govern country. But at the same time, is it not a fact that left to themselves, even the most ignorant peasants can manage their affairs better than our present government? The distrust for the ability of the common people to think for themselves and take care of themselves is only a pretext for seizing power in their name and abusing that power to suppress their liberty.
At election times, all parties go to the people and make promises; they all know that not half of their promises can be fulfilled, but they rely on the fact that the voters cannot understand and therefore can be duped. Can that state of affairs not be changed? It can be. To change this state of affairs is the first necessity, the biggest task for anybody who wishes to participate in politics-not for selfish ends. One need not go to the people only to catch their votes; to help them cast their votes intelligently would be an immensely more important work. The electorate should be asked to examine the programs of all the parties, to see if the promises can be fulfilled or if fulfilled will really improve matters. But this new political practice presupposes a radical change in the idea of human nature. It is an appeal to reason, which presupposes the belief that man is a rational being. Political practice is guided by the notion that the ordinary man cannot think for himself; therefore, he must be persuaded to follow parties and politicians. Since this unnatural relation between the people, the parties, and politicians constitutes the foundation of what is called party politics, the latter prevents the people even to think for themselves. Politics is not only a scramble for power but competition in all manner of questionable practices.
The position may appear to be a vicious circle. But there is a way out which party politicians would not take because that would mean the end of their days. Appeal to reason is the way out. And modern science indicates the way. Science teaches that human nature is not to believe but to enquire, that human nature is rational. It is true that the rational nature of man has been buried very deep. But being the essence of human nature, it can be recovered. Let some people have the conviction and the courage to act accordingly. Let them raise political practice on the level of reason and intelligence. I have no doubt the appeal to reason will and a response. The new politics will bear fruit sooner than one dares imagine; only the measure of success will not be power but gradual disappearance of that evil. Even a few people can lay down a solid foundation of democracy and freedom, if they forego the quest for power, do not participate in the scramble, do not ask for the vote of the people to rule in their name, but, on the contrary, remind the voters of their human dignity, capacity to think, and to act creatively.
Thus, the electorate will gradually become critical and discriminating the time will come when the voters of a locality will tell candidates of all parties to leave them alone; among themselves they will find men in whom they can have confidence and who will remain responsible to them between two elections. Once that happens, the end of the party system will begin, and with the parties, the main cause for concentration of power will disappear. In the process, we shall already have laid down the foundation of a decentralized state of local republics, which will combine all functions of the state as they affect the local life. National culture, national economy, and national political institutions will be cast on the pattern of the functions of these local republics; power will remain with them, to be wielded directly by the individual members of small communities. Being thus reared upon a broad foundation of direct democracies, the state will be really democratic. Usurpation of power will be out of the question. Thus, a pluralistic modem society can be built up at the same time while doing away with centralization of powers political and economic.
No comments:
Post a Comment