The Undemocratic Nature of International Institutions
The western democracies pride themselves as the model for modern government. They see themselves as the descendents of Ancient Greek and Rome. From the Greeks we have inherited the concept of Democracy and from the Romans the concept of Justice and equality before the law. The English trace their Democratic institutions from the Magna Carta of 1215 which imposed limits on the Monarch and guaranteed subjects of the crown with certain freedoms and rights under the law. The Americans pride themselves in their Constitution as the guarantor of the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The French remember the 1789 rebellion and the subsequent Revolution and the introduction of “Fraternite, egalite, and liberte”. All these countries and others recall the beginnings of equality under the law, and the right to a say in the running of the government; not necessarily through direct democracy, but through the right to vote, freedom of speech, the right to property, and the right to equal treatment under the law. In all cases the concept of equality and the right to vote based on simple citizenship and not title, land or capital holdings, have become ingrained in the culture and are guaranteed under the Constitution whether written or through common law.
The history of the 20th Century and the World Wars that have been fought have been characterized as wars to protect individual freedoms and the Democratic principles of government. Communism has rightly been depicted as limiting the rights of individual freedoms and the right to elect a government of their choosing. The Western Democracies have won the day and Totalitarian forms of government have, whether Communist or Fascist, been relegated to the dust bin of history. Western powers, especially the United States have been supportive of similar types of democratic governments and individual freedoms throughout the world. The United States has gone so far as to say that the latest Iraq war was an attempt to establish democracy and the rule of law in a section of the Middle East, with the hope that this would lead to the flourishing of democratic forms of government in other middle eastern countries. The British upon leaving their colonies after WW II, whether through colonial rebellions or financial necessity, had through the policies of its government attempted to foster democratic forms of government throughout its former colonies. The United States claims to have helped establish democracies in countries such as Japan, Germany and Italy. If we were to sum up the expectations of the Western Democracies it might be that progress and civilization will ultimately lead the rest of the world to a representative form of government based on individual freedoms and the election of a representative form of government. The thought being that these types of governments and individual freedoms will foster greater stability and peace throughout the world. The policies of any Democracy, it is believed, will tend to converge with every other democracy and lead to a more prosperous and peaceful world. This of course has not yet been proven, but there is merit to hope that such an outcome is probable. It has certainly worked on a National level, so why should it not work on an International level. The principle of individual freedom, equality under the law, and being governed by a freely elected government responsible to the people is conducive to civil living. After all, one of the greatest achievements of the Western Democracies is that if we have individual freedoms and a just and functioning legal system, combined with a representative government. In this environment disputes, misdeeds, and economic and regional rivalries, can be resolved in a peaceful non violent fashion, and adjustments made as circumstances warrant. There is little if any intrigue, no bottled up and stewing resentments, the competitive spirit is channelled towards economic or cultural competition, and the society evolves in a gradual continuous fashion, and not through stops and starts and violent outbursts and adjustments.
One would assume that what applies on a National level would also apply on an International level. The greatest threats to mankind today are self inflicted. We have evolved to a point, where barring a meteorite hit, we can adjust to anything nature can throw at us. Our greatest dangers are man made; whether these be technological, environmental, or over population, they require our attention and moreover cooperation amongst the bulk of humanity if we are not to turn such threats into military conflicts and possible human annihilation. With the experience of the first two world wars and the failure of the League of Nations, the United States and its WWII allies created the United Nations as an institution where human problems could be discussed and dealt with, without having to resort to the massive loss of manpower and human tragedy that these two wars represented. Unfortunately, as in all other human endeavour, self interest rears its ugly head, and if one can get away with it, one does. The United Nations which should have been a model for human dialogue, stewardship, and problem resolution, became an instrument for the WW II allies to project their future hegemony over world affairs.
It must be stated that at the time of the creation of the United Nations, we lived in a very different world. The concept of colonies still existed and was deemed to be normal by countries such as Britain and France. The Monroe doctrine providing US hegemony over the Western Hemisphere (North and South America), was viewed as perfectly natural. The Soviet Union’s sphere of influence over the Eastern Block (Eastern Europe) was viewed as a reality backed up by man and materiel on the ground. The AXIS powers defeat relegated them to secondary status. Countries such as India, Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, and most of South America were viewed as under the influence of some super power or other. The concept of equality amongst the various world governments was certainly not a concept whose time had come. Never the less it is very hard to give these excuses as to why the United Nations became structured in such an undemocratic fashion. This is an institution that got created by powers that believed, if not in Democracy, certainly in equality under the law. The Democratic countries (The United States, Britain, and France) could certainly have convinced The Soviet Union and Taiwan to go along with a more representative structure. After all, it would have been very difficult for the Soviet Union to argue against people’s equal representation in International institutions; and as for Taiwan, it would have gone along with whatever the United States would have proposed.
What we got was an institution composed of two chambers, The General Assembly and the Security Council. The General Assembly, an organization with no powers, except for the power of persuasion is at first glance viewed as being Democratic, that is each member has one vote, and decisions are based on majority rule. The problem is that each country has one vote. So India has one vote and the Bahamas, or Bermuda, or Singapore has one vote. The theory is each country represents a people, and each people have an equal vote, therefore democratic. One problem, India represents 1.2 billion people, the Bahamas represents less than 300, 000 people, they each have one vote. So on a ratio basis, each Bahamian individual has 4000 times the voting right of an individual Indian citizen. It is estimated that mathematically it is possible for 8% of the world’s population to pass a resolution in the UN General Assembly.
The Security Council, the only institution of the United Nations that has any power, is composed of 16 members, 5 permanent members with individual veto power, and 11 members that are elected in the General Assembly based on some very specific regional representation rules, who serve for a specific period of time and have no veto power. As most of us know the 5 permanent members are The United States, Russia, Britain, France and China. These states of course are the victors, or their descendents, of the Second World War.
Now that the world has evolved and we know better, there are movements afoot to alter The Charter of the United Nations so that it is more representative. In fact, if it is to survive and become a more useful institution, it has to change. Unfortunately to change the Charter a two thirds majority of its members is required along with the unanimity of the permanent members of the Untied Nations Security Council. The likelihood of this happening will be somewhat near to impossible, but not impossible. Interestingly, the changes proposed are not to do away with one country one vote in the General assembly and have something more representative based on population distribution, like all other Democracies; no, the focus is on which other countries merit security council permanent representation and should they have veto power or not. The issue of eliminating veto power is not even on the list of possibilities.
The inclusion of India as a permanent member of the Security Council is not very controversial, other countries such as Japan, Germany, Brazil, Nigeria, Italy, and possibly some Middle Eastern country are controversial. It seems no on has taken the time to address the issue of equal representation, justice, and feeling that as a citizen of whatever state I belong to, I can feel that I have equal representation in International institutions and can therefore accept and support whatever resolutions are democratically arrived at.
No, the jockeying for position is well under way, and campaigning to please the current permanent members is duly being strategized in the various world capitals whose government feels they have a chance at a permanent place within the Security Council, with or without a veto power.
Is there no government who believes in Democracy on an International level? It is not as if the United Nations is particularly intrusive in World affairs. Surely, the more states in the Security Council with veto power the less likelihood for that council to pass any resolution.
The old game of Power politics is alive and well, and no state has even contemplated not playing the game.
We will have to wait fro some other major world catastrophe before humanity will bury the United Nations and embark on some other form of World body, hopefully with a more representative form of governance.
We could have talked about the WTO (World trade Organization), the IMF (International Monetary Fund) or the World Bank. In all cases the concept of Democracy is not quite an accepted form of governance.
One needs to ask, why this is so?
There is certainly a great deal of mistrust in International relations, but one suspects that is not the main reason why these institutions are not democratic. The real reason has to do with protecting acquired rights. This in some sense is not that different from the struggle between the landed aristocracy (land owners) and the Merchant/Capitalist class during the Industrial Revolution. The new moneyed class certainly had gained in importance, but the landed aristocracy was not going to give up without a fight. We therefore had internal struggles nationally between the various power groups, ultimately leading to some form of Democratic government.
Who will fight for equal rights on an International level?
It will certainly not be the National governments; they will not give up any rights without a fight. The logical conclusion is that there will be struggles for power and eventually some form of international democracy will emerge.
Of course this presupposes that we will survive such struggles, not a particularly good bet I would hasten to add.
The World needs to return to the concept of International parties and proponents of greater International equality and human rights. Perhaps not the Communist International, but some form of belief in a common charter of rights and freedoms; not necessarily the United Nations charter of rights and freedoms, which is all encompassing and ultra generous because no state is required to apply it, and there are no penalties for infringing its rules.
Perhaps the United Nations will be reformed when, and only when, its members will be forced legally to abide by whatever resolution is passed in the United Nations. As we are a long way from that, the United Nations acts like a Royal Court, a place to see and be seen, to display your status, and to show your generosity to the lesser equals. Fortunately we know what has happened to Royal Courts. Perhaps the same will happen to the United Nations.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Malthusian Dilemma
The Malthusian Dilemma
Malthus was an economist in the 19th century that predicted that human population would outstrip food supply. Eventually famine would ensue, bringing food and population back into line. His premise was based on the theory that while populations grew exponentially, food growth was linear. What Malthus failed to factor in was the revolution in farming from feudal or subsistence agriculture, to single crop commodity production. The difference in methods would greatly increase the food supply, along with improved application of science with things such as chemical fertilizer and pesticides.
So while the population of the world had reached approximately 1 billion people, Malthus was preaching population control policies to avert a human famine catastrophe.
Two hundred years later, and the population has reached 6 billion and projected to grow to 9 billion. Obviously Malthus’ model was wrong.
If one wanted to be charitable, one could argue that at the current production methods of the time, if nothing changed, the population was hitting the limit of the system to support it.
That is precisely the reason why predicting future events is so fraught with danger. One cannot model all of the factors and their interactions. Moreover a new discovery, or unforeseen change, will lead to significantly different results.
Malthus was right directionally, he was spectacularly wrong in his timing. He failed to take into account the human ingenuity for innovation in addressing a problem.
What relevance does Malthus have for today? Today we still have the issue of population explosion, we have the issue of Global Warming, we have the issue of water shortage, we have the issue of ocean and air pollution, we have the issue of genetic engineering, we have the issue of biomass diversity and extinction, and we have the issue of mutual self destruction. We have a whole host of things where application of a Malthusian type theory can lead us to massive expenditures to correct for a problem in a manner that may or may not be appropriate or timely. We may have more science and information at our disposal; however we can never model the future. Not only is it too complex to do, but more so, we cannot know what we don’t know.
That was Malthus’s mistake; he assumed he had all the inputs. His theory was correct, but application of currently unknown techniques and science, would shift the problem into the future by hundreds of years.
So how do we deal with our major sustainability issues? We can take a Malthusian approach and say we may be wrong as to timing, but the issue is too important to wait for the time when it has become critical and immediate. It may work, and it may be timely; however in most cases it will be costly, controversial, and lead to significant problems in obtaining support for whatever policy is undertaken.
A more appropriate policy may be to allow the problem to develop, allow economics to deal with the issue of corrective measures. Such an approach would not be controversial, may address the problem at a stage when it is more costly to correct, but will help with the issue of obtaining support.
Unfortunately we are neither today, nor will we ever be in a position where wise men will be able to dictate policy. If we are to be truly democratic, we could allow the population to decide. This would be counterproductive as the fact that a majority feels that the answer is a or b, does not make them correct. Allowing the economic system through proper cost capturing and the dynamics of demand and supply would be an approach that in the long run would avoid controversy.
We need a feedback mechanism to correct for a given problem. Without an economic feedback mechanism we cannot steer the ship in a direction that is both appropriate and least controversial.
Some might argue that issues such as global warming need to be addressed prior to the event happening; otherwise it will be more difficult or impossible to correct. They may be right; however with proper monitoring and pricing of things such as CO2 production, we should be able to establish an appropriate mechanism for averting human calamities.
Unfortunately we can never know what we don’t know, and until unmistakeable symptoms appear, or the problem is glaringly evident to everyone, we cannot be expected to obtain support to correct a problem whose reality and timing is problematic.
Besides, we have bigger problems than that. Even if we could be certain that a catastrophe is imminent, given our current geopolitical structure, we would have political jockeying for obtaining advantage over other states, rather than focusing on the common problem.
Before we can solve any of these problems we need to assemble the appropriate project team. A project team with members who are not responsible for the problem, but are responsible to a power that has different political and economic priorities, will never be a united team. Obtaining alignment in such an environment is almost impossible. In this environment, there is no majority rule, and unanimity will be impossible to attain.
The first order of the day is to address the structure and rules of decision making by the project team. As we have one planet and one boat we need to have a common set of rules and methods for addressing future critical events.
The main function of such a team would be to set the rules for economic activity and the measuring and cost structure for guiding the eco-system forward.
Our problem is significant as we live on a single planet, but it is subdivided into geographically autonomous states, with different levels of cultural and technological evolution. We might even state that if everyone takes care of his own little corner, than the end result will be positive for all of us. There is certainly some merit for such an approach. In a world where we can affect climate change, ocean and air pollution, release of genetically modified bacteria, foods, chemical gases, and radioactive particles; it is somewhat naive to assume that our current Nation State approach to managing our planet will lead to positive results. Our current international Organizations report to National Governments and not to the population at large, moreover our international organizations are not democratic and we do not all have an equal say in their administration.
We can continue to muddle along, and wait for catastrophic events to unfold, either through wars, or environmental exhaustion or we can commence on a path to having a more appropriate and responsive management structure in place.
Malthus was lucky; the human ability at the time to devastate the planet was far from significant. Our current situation may be similar, however everything around us seems to be pointing to a more significant and immediate problem.
Malthus was an economist in the 19th century that predicted that human population would outstrip food supply. Eventually famine would ensue, bringing food and population back into line. His premise was based on the theory that while populations grew exponentially, food growth was linear. What Malthus failed to factor in was the revolution in farming from feudal or subsistence agriculture, to single crop commodity production. The difference in methods would greatly increase the food supply, along with improved application of science with things such as chemical fertilizer and pesticides.
So while the population of the world had reached approximately 1 billion people, Malthus was preaching population control policies to avert a human famine catastrophe.
Two hundred years later, and the population has reached 6 billion and projected to grow to 9 billion. Obviously Malthus’ model was wrong.
If one wanted to be charitable, one could argue that at the current production methods of the time, if nothing changed, the population was hitting the limit of the system to support it.
That is precisely the reason why predicting future events is so fraught with danger. One cannot model all of the factors and their interactions. Moreover a new discovery, or unforeseen change, will lead to significantly different results.
Malthus was right directionally, he was spectacularly wrong in his timing. He failed to take into account the human ingenuity for innovation in addressing a problem.
What relevance does Malthus have for today? Today we still have the issue of population explosion, we have the issue of Global Warming, we have the issue of water shortage, we have the issue of ocean and air pollution, we have the issue of genetic engineering, we have the issue of biomass diversity and extinction, and we have the issue of mutual self destruction. We have a whole host of things where application of a Malthusian type theory can lead us to massive expenditures to correct for a problem in a manner that may or may not be appropriate or timely. We may have more science and information at our disposal; however we can never model the future. Not only is it too complex to do, but more so, we cannot know what we don’t know.
That was Malthus’s mistake; he assumed he had all the inputs. His theory was correct, but application of currently unknown techniques and science, would shift the problem into the future by hundreds of years.
So how do we deal with our major sustainability issues? We can take a Malthusian approach and say we may be wrong as to timing, but the issue is too important to wait for the time when it has become critical and immediate. It may work, and it may be timely; however in most cases it will be costly, controversial, and lead to significant problems in obtaining support for whatever policy is undertaken.
A more appropriate policy may be to allow the problem to develop, allow economics to deal with the issue of corrective measures. Such an approach would not be controversial, may address the problem at a stage when it is more costly to correct, but will help with the issue of obtaining support.
Unfortunately we are neither today, nor will we ever be in a position where wise men will be able to dictate policy. If we are to be truly democratic, we could allow the population to decide. This would be counterproductive as the fact that a majority feels that the answer is a or b, does not make them correct. Allowing the economic system through proper cost capturing and the dynamics of demand and supply would be an approach that in the long run would avoid controversy.
We need a feedback mechanism to correct for a given problem. Without an economic feedback mechanism we cannot steer the ship in a direction that is both appropriate and least controversial.
Some might argue that issues such as global warming need to be addressed prior to the event happening; otherwise it will be more difficult or impossible to correct. They may be right; however with proper monitoring and pricing of things such as CO2 production, we should be able to establish an appropriate mechanism for averting human calamities.
Unfortunately we can never know what we don’t know, and until unmistakeable symptoms appear, or the problem is glaringly evident to everyone, we cannot be expected to obtain support to correct a problem whose reality and timing is problematic.
Besides, we have bigger problems than that. Even if we could be certain that a catastrophe is imminent, given our current geopolitical structure, we would have political jockeying for obtaining advantage over other states, rather than focusing on the common problem.
Before we can solve any of these problems we need to assemble the appropriate project team. A project team with members who are not responsible for the problem, but are responsible to a power that has different political and economic priorities, will never be a united team. Obtaining alignment in such an environment is almost impossible. In this environment, there is no majority rule, and unanimity will be impossible to attain.
The first order of the day is to address the structure and rules of decision making by the project team. As we have one planet and one boat we need to have a common set of rules and methods for addressing future critical events.
The main function of such a team would be to set the rules for economic activity and the measuring and cost structure for guiding the eco-system forward.
Our problem is significant as we live on a single planet, but it is subdivided into geographically autonomous states, with different levels of cultural and technological evolution. We might even state that if everyone takes care of his own little corner, than the end result will be positive for all of us. There is certainly some merit for such an approach. In a world where we can affect climate change, ocean and air pollution, release of genetically modified bacteria, foods, chemical gases, and radioactive particles; it is somewhat naive to assume that our current Nation State approach to managing our planet will lead to positive results. Our current international Organizations report to National Governments and not to the population at large, moreover our international organizations are not democratic and we do not all have an equal say in their administration.
We can continue to muddle along, and wait for catastrophic events to unfold, either through wars, or environmental exhaustion or we can commence on a path to having a more appropriate and responsive management structure in place.
Malthus was lucky; the human ability at the time to devastate the planet was far from significant. Our current situation may be similar, however everything around us seems to be pointing to a more significant and immediate problem.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Trapped in Our Own Past
Trapped in our own past
Millions of years of evolution have thought us the merits of belonging to a group. Group dynamics and solidarity have proved successful, and those of us who carry these types of genes have survived due to the benefits that such attributes have provided us.
In a hunter gatherer society, the simple fact of belonging to a group has made life less precarious, we have had a degree of protection from famine, attack, disease. The group was always there to provide for alternate source of food, protect us from external and possibly internal rivals, and if we got sick, we would be cared for long enough to be able to restart our regular activities once recovered from the disease.
The group moreover was a source of knowledge, we could learn from our elders, our peers, even our rivals. If an individual found a new source of fruit, game, or shelter, we could all benefit from it. If someone’s way of doing things was inefficient, the group would ignore his/her approach and thus vote to not change from their tried and true methods.
As humans having children required a great deal of time and effort to raise to maturity, the group provided not only a sheltered environment in which to raise the children, but a very efficient one as well. Not all women or elder children were required to take care of children. This provided a major advantage over the lone wolf type of living.
One other significant aspect of group dynamics was the ability to specialize. A good hunter would lead the hunt; a good strategist might be placed in charge of defending the territory. Someone with good observation skills and memory might be in charge of when to move the group from one hunting ground to another depending on the seasons. Someone with a good knowledge of plants might become the village shaman. Someone who knew where to dig for certain types of roots might become the group gatherer of edible plants. Someone with skills in the making of spears, clubs, and making of archery, might become the local arms maker. Someone with good ability to communicate visually might become the local trader with other groups. This in the end is the beginning of civilization. Without division of labour there would be very little need for civilization.
The individual in us was and is always looking for a group to belong to. It is part and parcel of who we are. It is the keystone of our success. It is so part of us, that we fail to realize the dynamics of the process.
Groups initially were very small. Related family groups were the initial groupings. As our ability to develop methods and technology to control large territories evolved, we grew into villages, somewhat mobile, but nonetheless villages.
With the arrival of domesticated animals and agriculture, the group gained a greater degree of stability and size, and we move from a village to something resembling a city.
Here things change, with the growth of the city, the familial lineage is broken; the tribal or ethnic lineage continues, but things get more impersonal. You may be from the same tribe, but if you are a farmer, you are much inferior to the soldiers. If you are the leader of the group, you may actually see yourself as being a member of a deity and not a member of the local tribe. You may be a member of a City, a Nation or an Empire; however you will have a highly defined role and a commensurate status within that entity. You are no longer seen as belonging to the same group and being one equal to all others, you are now viewed as a possession of the crown, ruler, or emperor. You are expected to make your contribution to the sovereign in some form of good or monetary fashion, and are expected to do as you are told, especially in times of external threats.
Over time, some type of justice system which has evolved from historical practices is codified and you have some recourse for injustices done you, especially by your peers. Injustices done to you by your superiors of course are a different matter. Nevertheless some type of justice system evolves, which over time becomes an expected minimum right. Empires come and go, but traditions remain, evolve, and become better defined.
With the arrival of large Empires, such as the Roman Empire, a codified law emerges. You have duties to the sovereign, but you also have rights. Again within your peer group there is a better chance of obtaining justice, across classes, the situation is more precarious.
We accept this evolution of justice as even in its incomplete, and discriminating form, it is superior to what might be attainable through means such as individual or tribal vengeance, not that these methods are fully given up. Over time as the justice system and the power of the state to dispense justice increases, the individual vendettas, one on one violence, or tribal skirmishes diminish. Even today in large parts of the world family reprisals for damage done to its members is still a common form of justice. In developed countries this type of justice is totally frowned upon, except during periods of civil unrest, riots, or civil wars; when this type of justice again surges to the fore and old grudges and settling of scores takes place. Of course the closer to a true and well functioning justice system the state approaches, the less the likelihood of this type of return to the “law of the Jungle”
With the expansion of commerce, the development of large urban areas and industrialization, the need for skilled traders and labourers increases; as the complexity of the society demands greater distribution of responsibility and authority, so the political leadership becomes more dispersed and the crown is forced to share power with the landed gentry and the capitalist class. We begin to see the development of limited monarchies, and outright democracies. Of course these types of political structures existed in the past in small numbers and in relatively small city states, or national groups. Now, large states have developed into functioning democracies. Within these democracies we get highly developed justice systems, where the state cannot intervene without cause with the protected freedom and individual rights of its members.
We now have a functioning state, that derives its power from the people, and whose purpose, nominally at least, is to serve the people and implement their wishes. Within the state, we could always get uprisings, civil wars, attempted coups, military revolts, as well as external invasions; however it is assumed that a functioning state with a functioning justice system, and an appropriate army to defend it against external threat, will survive and prosper. Segregation of duties, constitutional limitations to political office, and individual civilian vigilance is expected to keep the state functioning and evolving over time.
The model of the state, in theory at least, could be applied to the citizens of the planet. We have a functioning global economy with a transportation and communication system that rivals any fully integrated National State from the past. We have a literate and knowledgeable electorate that rivals any from the past. We have a desire for freedom, democracy, and constitutional limitation to rival any past republic. Yet, we maintain that eliminating National borders and creating some form of Global government apparatus would be akin to sleeping with the Devil himself.
We are told that we cannot trust other ethnic groups; yet the United States is a model of the ability of many groups to live together and prosper. We are told that we are different, superior, to other Nations; yet we now accept Chinese, Japanese, and Indians (from India) as our equals. We are told that our cultural and religious beliefs are not compatible with others; yet we claim to live in secular, multi ethnic, multi religious, multi lingual states, for example Canada, or even India.
There are economic advantages that we currently enjoy that we would have to give up or share more evenly with others. These and the historical misconceptions that have been fed us over the ages have created mistrust, and reticence to proceed to wider unions.
We may have advantages in being isolated, but we also have significant disadvantages. We have to keep standing armies, we may face nuclear annihilation, we are unable to resolve serious global economic, environmental, and sustainability issues.
We still believe in power politics. We have given them up for a more just society within the state, but are unwilling or unable to do so, on a broader basis.
This is the crux of this blog. What are our options, and why are we so reluctant to change
To be continued.
Millions of years of evolution have thought us the merits of belonging to a group. Group dynamics and solidarity have proved successful, and those of us who carry these types of genes have survived due to the benefits that such attributes have provided us.
In a hunter gatherer society, the simple fact of belonging to a group has made life less precarious, we have had a degree of protection from famine, attack, disease. The group was always there to provide for alternate source of food, protect us from external and possibly internal rivals, and if we got sick, we would be cared for long enough to be able to restart our regular activities once recovered from the disease.
The group moreover was a source of knowledge, we could learn from our elders, our peers, even our rivals. If an individual found a new source of fruit, game, or shelter, we could all benefit from it. If someone’s way of doing things was inefficient, the group would ignore his/her approach and thus vote to not change from their tried and true methods.
As humans having children required a great deal of time and effort to raise to maturity, the group provided not only a sheltered environment in which to raise the children, but a very efficient one as well. Not all women or elder children were required to take care of children. This provided a major advantage over the lone wolf type of living.
One other significant aspect of group dynamics was the ability to specialize. A good hunter would lead the hunt; a good strategist might be placed in charge of defending the territory. Someone with good observation skills and memory might be in charge of when to move the group from one hunting ground to another depending on the seasons. Someone with a good knowledge of plants might become the village shaman. Someone who knew where to dig for certain types of roots might become the group gatherer of edible plants. Someone with skills in the making of spears, clubs, and making of archery, might become the local arms maker. Someone with good ability to communicate visually might become the local trader with other groups. This in the end is the beginning of civilization. Without division of labour there would be very little need for civilization.
The individual in us was and is always looking for a group to belong to. It is part and parcel of who we are. It is the keystone of our success. It is so part of us, that we fail to realize the dynamics of the process.
Groups initially were very small. Related family groups were the initial groupings. As our ability to develop methods and technology to control large territories evolved, we grew into villages, somewhat mobile, but nonetheless villages.
With the arrival of domesticated animals and agriculture, the group gained a greater degree of stability and size, and we move from a village to something resembling a city.
Here things change, with the growth of the city, the familial lineage is broken; the tribal or ethnic lineage continues, but things get more impersonal. You may be from the same tribe, but if you are a farmer, you are much inferior to the soldiers. If you are the leader of the group, you may actually see yourself as being a member of a deity and not a member of the local tribe. You may be a member of a City, a Nation or an Empire; however you will have a highly defined role and a commensurate status within that entity. You are no longer seen as belonging to the same group and being one equal to all others, you are now viewed as a possession of the crown, ruler, or emperor. You are expected to make your contribution to the sovereign in some form of good or monetary fashion, and are expected to do as you are told, especially in times of external threats.
Over time, some type of justice system which has evolved from historical practices is codified and you have some recourse for injustices done you, especially by your peers. Injustices done to you by your superiors of course are a different matter. Nevertheless some type of justice system evolves, which over time becomes an expected minimum right. Empires come and go, but traditions remain, evolve, and become better defined.
With the arrival of large Empires, such as the Roman Empire, a codified law emerges. You have duties to the sovereign, but you also have rights. Again within your peer group there is a better chance of obtaining justice, across classes, the situation is more precarious.
We accept this evolution of justice as even in its incomplete, and discriminating form, it is superior to what might be attainable through means such as individual or tribal vengeance, not that these methods are fully given up. Over time as the justice system and the power of the state to dispense justice increases, the individual vendettas, one on one violence, or tribal skirmishes diminish. Even today in large parts of the world family reprisals for damage done to its members is still a common form of justice. In developed countries this type of justice is totally frowned upon, except during periods of civil unrest, riots, or civil wars; when this type of justice again surges to the fore and old grudges and settling of scores takes place. Of course the closer to a true and well functioning justice system the state approaches, the less the likelihood of this type of return to the “law of the Jungle”
With the expansion of commerce, the development of large urban areas and industrialization, the need for skilled traders and labourers increases; as the complexity of the society demands greater distribution of responsibility and authority, so the political leadership becomes more dispersed and the crown is forced to share power with the landed gentry and the capitalist class. We begin to see the development of limited monarchies, and outright democracies. Of course these types of political structures existed in the past in small numbers and in relatively small city states, or national groups. Now, large states have developed into functioning democracies. Within these democracies we get highly developed justice systems, where the state cannot intervene without cause with the protected freedom and individual rights of its members.
We now have a functioning state, that derives its power from the people, and whose purpose, nominally at least, is to serve the people and implement their wishes. Within the state, we could always get uprisings, civil wars, attempted coups, military revolts, as well as external invasions; however it is assumed that a functioning state with a functioning justice system, and an appropriate army to defend it against external threat, will survive and prosper. Segregation of duties, constitutional limitations to political office, and individual civilian vigilance is expected to keep the state functioning and evolving over time.
The model of the state, in theory at least, could be applied to the citizens of the planet. We have a functioning global economy with a transportation and communication system that rivals any fully integrated National State from the past. We have a literate and knowledgeable electorate that rivals any from the past. We have a desire for freedom, democracy, and constitutional limitation to rival any past republic. Yet, we maintain that eliminating National borders and creating some form of Global government apparatus would be akin to sleeping with the Devil himself.
We are told that we cannot trust other ethnic groups; yet the United States is a model of the ability of many groups to live together and prosper. We are told that we are different, superior, to other Nations; yet we now accept Chinese, Japanese, and Indians (from India) as our equals. We are told that our cultural and religious beliefs are not compatible with others; yet we claim to live in secular, multi ethnic, multi religious, multi lingual states, for example Canada, or even India.
There are economic advantages that we currently enjoy that we would have to give up or share more evenly with others. These and the historical misconceptions that have been fed us over the ages have created mistrust, and reticence to proceed to wider unions.
We may have advantages in being isolated, but we also have significant disadvantages. We have to keep standing armies, we may face nuclear annihilation, we are unable to resolve serious global economic, environmental, and sustainability issues.
We still believe in power politics. We have given them up for a more just society within the state, but are unwilling or unable to do so, on a broader basis.
This is the crux of this blog. What are our options, and why are we so reluctant to change
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
