Hierarchy, Unity and Democracy

The welcome death of Gaddafi last week – and the unchecked, frantic killings by Bashir al-Assad - may bring us once more to reflect on the difference between dictatorship and democracy. Politics is said to be all about power. Democracy harnesses power; dictatorship monopolizes it. Gaddafi's death just as Tunisians went to the urns this weekend illustrate the span. Monopolize power or share it.

Yet the meaning of power remains elusive. Power is what it takes to deal with widespread conflict, public disagreement that is not easily otherwise resolved by compromise. The French say “trancher”, literally “slice through” a problem, as with a butcher's knife or an axe (Norwegians say the same, “skjære igjennom”) where compromise is unavailable. All societies have to find methods to handle public disagreement. In one way or another, all thinkable solutions involve what may be called the principles of (a) hierarchy and (b) unity. The principle of hierarchy says the top leader decides. The principle of unity says only one hierarchy is allowed; the domain in which decisionmaking applies must be preserved.

Complete hierarchy places all members of society in a rank order of levels where decisions for each level is made by the levels above, and one individual or small group at the top is the ultimate decisionmaker. China today is one example, Iran another, Burma a third. Within given functional areas sub-hierarchies may exist, like Chinese state-owned companies often posing as commercial ventures.

Nevertheless, hierarchies may be more or less complete or stringent. Dictatorships strive for complete hierarchy. But even democracies are hierarchies! All societies have to decide public disagreements; there is not room for everyone to participate in the making of every decision. Perfect democracy is a chimera. Democracies are always to some extent hierarchical, in that they define which representative assemblies and other publicly controlled bodies shall make which kinds of decisions, and prevent unauthorized decisions. Hence, although democracies strive for minimal hierarchy, they are not anarchical; they insist on the need for government to be given a mandate to make decisions for all. Implied here is also the legitimacy principle, the requirement that all must accept the decisions made, even if they disagree.

Here is where Greece makes a mockery of their own ancient invention – they elect a parliament and then take to the streets for months on end to oppose the parliament's decisions. And the Greek parliamentarians respond by similar betrayals, by increasing their own salaries while cutting everyone else's, and (most recently) by voting themselves new state-funded cars (!) after deciding on increased austerity for the citizens.  (http://www.grreporter.info/en/greek_parliamentarians_privileges/5216 )

Here is where the opening for grey areas and sham democracy appears – like Iran's and Russia's circumscribed democratic systems, or even Gaddafi's “green socialism” run by “people's committees” without any decisionmaking authority.

Here is also where the unity principle enters: The legitimate right to make decisions for a society includes a prohibition against mass escape. If you disagree, you cannot just take part of the country with you and leave, setting up shop for yourself. This was Lincoln's defense against the Southern secession 150 years ago. Provided you or your ancestors have agreed to a voluntary federation, you cannot just leave. (If you were forcibly annexed, like the Baltics in 1940, it's a different matter.)

The ingeniously simple formulation by Albert O. Hirschmann (1970) comes to mind: Exit, Voice or Loyalty. In every economic or political project, party, association, company - even nations - disaffected members (customers, affiliates, citizens) have three choices – they can leave (exit), they can complain (voice), or they can shut up, stay put and be loyal. National governments, of course, insist on unity along with hierarchy. That is why governments of hierarchically run countries with centrifugal forces (e.g. China or Russia) refuse to let the UN Security Council endorse humanitarian intervention in places like Syria (though they stepped aside by abstention to allow the Libyan intervention, a decision in hindsight not likely to be repeated any time soon).

That is also why the new governing systems about to be established in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya should consider that absolute principles of government – like those deriving from literal readings of Islam – must be tempered by the need to minimize hierarchy and find solutions in maximum tolerance. The easiest solution is to revert to hierarchy, or by another name, dictatorship.

TO MAKE A COMMENT, please check the option "anonymous" before clicking "publish" - even if you sign by name, otherwise the system will not show your comment.

Knee-jerk Conservatism in US and Europe

A socialist friend (on the European side of the Atlantic) has challenged me to give my views on taxes. Presumably he wants to put me on the spot since I call myself a conservative. The background, of course, is what among US conservatives passes for the plight of American taxpayers, fleeced year after year, while they see people in Europe happily paying their taxes without demur. In 2011 the US is in crisis over taxes, while Europe is in crisis over debt (at about the same level as the present US “non-crisis” over debt, public and private, but don't let anyone know). The circus atmosphere and lack of perspective in much of US public debate on the conservative side causes the Atlantic to seem wider than ever since steam replaced sails. Not that we can claim to be much better. On our side, we have the voters of Greece who expect the government to provide for them even without their paying taxes. We have the bankers of Spain who think the money in the vault is theirs to spend as long as the politicians agree (and get their share).

In short, though a conservative, I venture the possibly dangerous view that government is inevitable and so are the taxes required to pay for it. I even believe that view is fairly mainstream among European conservatives. Still, taxes and government are never swallowed without suspicion among our voters of the center-right.

A key problem for most conservatives is that bureaucratic growth is a self-propelled phenomenon and one very hard to restrain. Usually brushed off by the left as a minor issue or even myth, the phenomenon is a fact. It is widespread, and it is costly, especially in countries where civil servants are reasonably well-paid and taxes are already high. (For a good overview and synthesis see Marshall W. Meyer: “The Growth of Public and Private Bureaucracies”, Theory and Society

Volume 16, Number 2 (1987), 215-235.)

There is also a strong tendency among governmental representatives – civil servants – to see themselves as holders of a higher kind of knowledge (or “truth”) about what is best for ordinary citizens. Conservatives reject this. Both of these kinds of scepticism are at the core of conservative thinking, even across the Atlantic. Hence a restricted reading of Ronald Reagan's statement “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” can find support even in Europe. But that support does not extend to the loud-mouthed US crusades against government as such, which is the normal reading of Reagan's intention.

Bureaucratization and knowing what's best for you go together in the third scourge of social-democratic policies, namely reform policies. Nothing to me raises warning flags as surely as a government that announces the coming of some broad-scale reform. They are usually untested and usually require an expansion of government jobs. In this kind of reaction conservatives on the two sides of the Atlantic are pretty much in agreement.

Fortunately there are even conservative American commentators who are not altogether oblivious to the need for government and taxes. Recently, the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger wrote, “To ensure American well-being, the pre-eminent purpose of a modern tax system should be to achieve the highest possible level of growth in the private economy with a competent, efficient state in a supporting role.” (Daniel Henninger, “What Are Taxes For?” WSJ, Dec 16, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704828104576021672925440698.html). His blog leaves unclear, however, how a competent, efficient state can be built without an expensive civil service paid for by taxes, presumably at the expense of his desire for growth. Finding the trade-off point is the hard part.

The bottom line must be that countries without government are anarchies, and that taxes are required to govern with some degree of stability. The curious idea that government is not needed was tested in the Iberian peninsula in the late Middle Ages. When Isabella and Ferdinand took over their reigns of Castile and Aragon in the 1470s, Castile especially had been living with weak government for more than a century and was in dire need of some semblance of order. Each town had been left to its own devices and many had created voluntary “brotherhoods” to protect their citizens. Isabella instituted la Santa Hermandad (the Holy Brotherhood), a national levy for Castile as a whole and soon changed the situation to the better. Resources were taken from (guess who?) the citizens, i.e., a form of direct taxation.

Taxation is much older, of course. The historian Charles Tilly wrote about early European state-building as a form of protection racket. The King's men would arrive in the villages during the day to declare that “We'll protect you from bandits if you pay your taxes.” The same people came back at night as bandits to visit those who didn't pay. Medieval common folk in Europe often had the scourge of competing tax collectors confiscating their harvest on behalf of rival claimants to the throne. Centuries later we hear about the need for a government to have a monopoly over the means of violence for political stability to exist. Even conservatives understand (except of course in the US).

At the other end of the scale of governmental ambition, however, is where the political battles of the 21^st century will be fought – how big an administration is needed to cater to the demands of rapidly growing, progressively more undereducated populations – and what tasks are better left to non-governmental organizations. This may sound like the US discourse, but it isn't. It is an open question whether reality will ever catch up with the US situation of massive untapped resources and unmet needs. My bet is it will.

Fair taxes will be recognized as such. Taxes are fair if they are paid by all, in the same proportion, and according to ability to pay. But I dissent on the principle of progressive taxation. Whether I make a million or just a hundred, I should pay the same percentage of my income.

While my American conservative friends assure me that I am not worthy of the name of a conservative, I hope I have shown that conservatism doesn't need to smell as much of sulphur as theirs. As for my socialist friend, I am sure he'll tell me I'm as deep in trouble as he thought before.

TO MAKE A COMMENT, please check the option "anonymous" before clicking "publish" - even if you sign by name, otherwise the system will not show your comment.