In a recent article [
"The dictators are back ... and we don’t care",
The Times (London), April 27, 2008] Robert Kagan bemoans the rise of authoritarian governments in Russia and China, among other venues. His reaction is natural — and typical of the post-Soviet generation. With the victory of the Western Allies over the USSR's Communist empire in World War III (aka the "cold war"), liberal democracy
über alles was the watchword of the day. Papa Francis Fukuyama told us that we were at the "
end of history", didn't he? Surely, the evil idea of authoritarian rule went down the tubes along with the USSR, right?
Wrong. Around the world, so-called "soft" dictatorships such as Putin's Russia (and auto-bureaucracies such as Singapore) seem to be perfectly acceptable to those living under them. It appears that despite the hand-wringing of some in our own media/government elite, authoritarianism is back. How can this
be? Can't the Masses in these countries see the obvious benefits of liberal democracy, of voting, laws, and representative government?
In a word,
no. To many people around the world, democracy does not bring to mind Pericles of Athens in a fresh, slave-laundered tunic, lecturing the people on the beauty of freedom; instead, it brings to mind guns in the streets, riots, and general social chaos. Democracy is not a one-size-fits all form of social order, after all, and representative government is neither suitable for nor adaptable to every culture. Believe it or not, many (most?) people in the world are profoundly distrustful of nose-counting as a means of government, and I'd like to propose a reason why.
From what I've seen in my travels and read in my studies, the truth is that people don't want to participate in an equal sharing of political power. I think most people
want the social order to be ruled by a single, non-participatory authority. I submit that this esire for top-down order is a natural part of human psychology, and is one reason why representative governments always fail over the long term.
I know the dogma these days is that people everywhere instinctively crave democracy (or a republican form of government, at the very least). The historical truth, however, is that most people don't really
care what form of government is in place at the national level as long as they are free to trade, worship, and live their everyday lives as they please. Singapore, for example, manages to function quite nicely under an authoritarian government today, as did Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal. Even the French, those lovers of
liberté, prefer to live under a central government that would be considered intolerably invasive here in the States. (For example: in France, the government gets to decide if the name you've picked for your newborn baby is acceptable or not. Imagine the State of Arkansas or Alaska having the power to block you from naming your kid Canyon or Ta'niqua!) And it's not just the furriners who prefer to let the Big Boys run the playground; our current abysmally low rates of voter participation in the United States are proof that most people
in America couldn't care less about participating in government as long as the streets are reasonably safe, gas and beer are reasonably cheap, the Big Game starts on time, and taxes are reasonably low.
Democracy is the system in which the masses (the
demos) rule. As practiced by the Athenian city-state in ancient Greece, democracy was never intended as a means of organizing any polity bigger than a city-state, and did not allow all citizens a say in government. The system established in 510 BC under Cleisthenes allowed all male citizens their say before the general Assembly, but carefully limited the power of the
hoi polloi to make laws and shape policy (this was the function of the
Boule, a body of representatives elected from the heads of the local political and tribal groups.) The system began to crack almost immediately, as the leaders of the various
demes (sub-groups) of Athenian society began jockeying among themselves for political advantage.
Which brings us to another point: democracies are brittle and prone to sudden collapse. Even the "ideal democracy" of Athens was hardly robust; 170 years after its establishment, the Athenian democracy had coalesced into an autocratic quasi-empire run by small, special-interest groups. It was then conquered, first by the autocratic Spartans, then by Alexander the Great, whose Macedonian empire ruled the Athenians for two centuries. Finally came the Roman Republic (not a democracy — they had elected dictators) which lasted five centuries off-and-on but which reverted to autocratic rule with the (elective) dictatorship-for-life of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Thereafter, Athens was under the Roman imperium in one form or another until AD 1806. Thus we see that even in its most pure form democracy has a lousy track record versus autocratic rule. Like communism, representative government looks great on paper but just doesn't work well in Real Life.
Keep in mind we're tallking about
big government here. At the city and county level, people
do prefer to have a say in government, but only to the extent that their government influences their everyday lives. Otherwise, they are content to raise their families, run their businesses, and earn their wages — and leave the big decisions to the local aristocracy.
Yes, I said "aristocracy". Every city in America has one: a cohort of four or five families who control (overtly or covertly) the local business, civic and governmental institutions. In every community, a sort of cream (or scum, if one prefers) of leaders naturally rises to the top of the general churn of citizens. It seems that some people are simply born with a talent for governing and administrating, and this talent tends to run in families. (In our city, for example, the V_________ family has been involved in running the show in one form or another for sixty-plus years, and most people are fine with that, because they do a fairly good job of it.) People born with this ability tend to rise to the levels of power of whatever community they inhabit, and tend to do what's best for the community out of a sense of
noblesse oblige. Such families represent a natural aristocracy, and without them, most communities would be chaotic.
And they are. The city of Dallas is a perfect example of what can happen when The People are allowed to take the reins of power. Over the first 120 years or so of its existence, the city was dominated by an unelected Power Elite of wealthy merchants, landowners, and industrial leaders, and things ran fairly smoothly under their crass, pitiless but generally benevolent domination. During this time, the city had an elected government, of course — a government composed of various candidates carefully groomed by the power group to fill these positions, but an elected government, nonetheless. This shadow government was not perfect, nor was it always run for the benefit of all, but under its offhanded tyranny the city thrived and grew, and most of its citizens prospered.
But beginning in the 1960s this tidy system began to be undermined. Due to legal pressures and societal changes, a genuine democracy began to rise in Dallas, and the aging (and now mostly suburban) members of the Power Elite decided to quietly and gradually surrender their control of the city rather than risk plunging Dallas into the kind of chaos that had gripped places such as LA, Detroit, and Chicago. (This is why there were never any real race riots or integration-related violence in Dallas: the Powers That Be simply decreed that Dallas would integrate, democratize, and desegregate, and it was so.) By surrendering their power gradually, the Power Elite facilitated the keeping of the peace, ensuring that Dallas remained an attractive haven for business.
Unfortunately, by surrendering their power, the monopolar rule of the “old money” tribe was slowly replaced by a multipolar battle for power between the city's various ethnic tribes, each of which of course had its own clique of the natural leaders, each of which had its own aims and interests. The city of Dallas today is "governed" by an exquisitely democratic, representational, and sensitive elected government — and is, of course, a big frigging mess, with a declining tax base, a rising crime rate, and a sputtering economy. The exurbs, which are now run by the sons and daughters of Dallas former Power Elite, are where the peace, quiet, and economic action is.
Democracy does not scale well. The lesson here is that representative government, where it works at all, works only at the scale of a city-state like Athens, and even then only when it is dominated by a natural aristocracy. A state or nation run by democratic principles will sooner or later devolve into chaos, as self-interested groups of all types battle each other for control. One need only look at Dallas — or the former Yugoslavia — for proof of that thesis.
So let the dictators come. We don't have to love them, of course — but we
can live alongside them, so long as they respect the basic human dignity of their thralls (e.g. no genocides, mind control, or organ harvesting), and otherwise do not threaten their neighbors or the peace of the world. The United States and her allies can coexist in peace with any number of benevolent authoritarian nation-states. We might not want to live in an authoritarian state ourselves, but to people in other countries a dictatorship or autocracy could very well be an alternative preferable to chaos. As a representative republic that grows ever less representative and republican by the day, we can tolerate the dictatorships of the world as merely the latest examples of what might be called the default mode of human government.
Labels: politics
