Jun
25
Submitted by Jeffrey on Fri, 2010-06-25 23:44
While viewing a few more amazing RSA Animations with friends, I found this 10 minute segment of a lecture by Stein Ringen, a professor of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Oxford, assessing the New Labour government and the state of the British constitution. While this may not seem relevant to most Americans, it illustrates (pun intended) the fundamental principles of sound government that both Britain and the United States of America have forgotten.
To sum it up, Ringen believes that too much high-level, central control (however amazing the consensus, momentum, or potential) leads to ineffective government.
Here are a few points to consider:
Government vs. Governance
There is a subtle difference between the terms "government" and "governance". While governance is something governments do, so do individuals. Principles of good governance are bigger than government.
Governments exist when two or more people establish rules and procedures for mutual, cooperative behavior.
When I refer to "government", I typically mean official, power-wielding organizations for civic order. However, minor "governments" are formed in neighborhoods, condo associations, even churches and workplaces.
Ideally, all forms of government will support good self-governance first and foremost. That's my main point in this article.
00:06:55 - "Everything was invested in reactive and controlling measures." Personal responsibility is a lost ideal. While the government is elected by popular vote, individuals are so divorced from the real choices that govern their lives that they easily divorce (rationalize) themselves from personal responsibility. Thus, no improvement is sustainable because the government and the governed are at odds.
00:08:30 - The Brittish have radically changed their practice of government in 30 years. They have centralized it far beyond the reach of the people they govern.
00:09:15 - Ringen proposes three steps to restore an effective government:
- Restore the House of Commons
- Re-invent local government
- Straighten out political funding
Ringen's assessment matches my own opinion of current US governance. I believe that democratic government cannot function efficiently, effectively, or ethically when power is over-centralized. In fact, the original design of American politics as a republic came about for just this reason. Democratic (centrist) governance breaks down faster the more it governs (in scope and citizenry). Complexity is the enemy of democracy. Democracy is inelastic—powerful, but only within a narrow scope.
A republic is a federation of democracies, a more elastic collection of representatives from each democracy with an even more limited scope, the further they get from the individual.
In our current system, the cities are the seats of democratic responsibility. The county is the forum for cities to cooperate in. The citizens of a county elect representatives to the state legislatures for narrow, specific purposes of cooperative good for everyone. The states also elect representatives to the federal legislature for even narrower purposes (carefully spelled out in our constitution). Government must exist at the grass-roots level. Our representative structure only serves a narrow, coordinating purpose.
Representatives exist as envoys of fellowship, ambassadors of peace, good will and collaboration between communities. But they only represent their people, their ideals, values, purposes, needs, their collective character. Representatives do not govern their constituents. However, representatives should lead and persuade their constituents, seeking a unified, cohesive community to represent. But that is the extent of their power—or should be. That is not the case today.
The challenge we face today is that representatives believe that they, as a body are a democracy, a community of individual agents who can decide how others should live, through a vote, and then apply the resulting laws to their constituents, whatever the topic or issue at hand. No. That is dangerous. That abstracted democracy is a dangerous illusion. There is no personal responsibility in such a government system! It is just too far removed from individual agency and responsibility.
Beyond a local (moderately sized) government, democracy begins to mutate. It rapidly becomes a tyrannical monster of the masses, without conscience or consideration. As the stakes rise, parties (and their politicians) coalesce to battle for control over the beast, seeking to turn it to their own purposes for as long as they can. Such strife and contention is not the purpose of government!
We need government for effective, efficient coordination of self-governance. To the degree that we can be personally responsible, we do not need government. Where we cannot effectively cope with community relationships and needs, we may need government to fill the gap, coordinate efforts, temporarily shoulder some responsibilities—always with the aim to return its responsibilities to the individual.
Personal responsibility is the heart of sustainable governance.
We must be personally responsible for the poor in our midst. If you do not see them, your community is too large. Your democratic structures have already become unwieldy monsters of oppression and destruction.
We must teach one another. If you can dismiss ignorance or rationalize away (deny personal responsibility for) someone else's continuous misfortune, your community is too big. Maybe you should not be in one at all, if you're that selfish!
We must serve and sacrifice for one another, face to face. This is one stewardship that government cannot effectively subsume. If you can't feel moved to sacrifice for someone, then your community is too big, or you need to spend time in a hyper-selfish community until you change.
Your community is too big when you can't know everyone on a real basis. Period. End of story. If you can't know everyone, then you can't make the best decisions; you can easily unbridle your passions, your desires, your lusts. That is the seed of destruction to your community, your government, and eventually, your own life.
Government is fundamentally between you and me, individual agents, with common morals or expectations of responsible behavior. To the extent that personal responsibility fails, government is necessary. As government grows, it begins to attract administrators who wish to perpetuate the system. These are politicians. As government expands, it becomes less a facilitator of shared responsibilities and more an entity unto its self, with a drive for self-preservation. "A government" soon seeks increased power (but not responsibility. Non-entities without souls cannot carry true responsibility), squeezing out real leaders (representing real people) in favor of self-serving politicians with a drive to serve the beast.
Politics and our current government structures are not real. They are too divorced from real government, which is based on unalienable responsibilities in us, the citizens governed.
But this post is getting too long. I'll sum up with another related video of supporting thought.
