In the previous post, I defined what I mean by an 'Institution' (with capital "I"). In this post in the Global Sustainability series, I will discuss Government as an Institution and explain why it seems to be important for sustainable forms of government to include democratic principles, i.e. the Democratic Necessity.
Government is perhaps the most obvious - the most logical - response to a need for institutions of societal survival. In the past, most governmental authority was derived directly from the Institutional concepts developed by Religion (e.g. theocracies), Family (e.g. monarchies), or some combination of the two. In fact, to this day, many governments remain modified forms of Religion and Family such as the government of Saudi Arabia (or retain superficial forms of the related traditions, titles, or positions such as the royal family in United Kingdom).
However, over the past several centuries many societies began to recognize a need for Government as a separate Institution in order to deal with the complexities of growing, diverse populations. As a result, many modern governments were formed solely for the purpose of acting as an Institution. For example, modern Western democratic governments, such as the US government, were specifically engineered as a means to ensure societal survival (or domestic tranquility), by allowing for open debates in legislative bodies about the best means of improving society and setting forth obvious negative consequences in a structured court system for those that use violence as a means of conflict resolution. Importantly, these modern Governments were designed to (or later fine-tuned to) work with, disregard, or override the legacies left behind by earlier predominant Institutions.
Similarly, communist and fascist governments were formed with at least the superficial intention of acting as an Institution. Indeed, many forms of government can exist (and have existed) that do not successfully act as Governments in the Institutional context. For example, many oligarchies, dictatorships, and monarchies function mainly in order to support a small group of beneficiaries rather than to the benefit of the society as a whole (i.e. rather than acting as an Institution to ensure that the society survives and succeeds).
In these cases, the government (notice the small "g") could provide the same result if the society that it ruled over did not exist, as long as the rulers (or beneficiaries) still were able to take advantage of the geographical resources and technological comforts in the country. As a rule of thumb, if simply replacing all or nearly all members of society with a force of robots would not change the dynamic of a government, then it is not a Government.
But why does it matter if a government acts as a Government in terms of global sustainability? Does a government need to be fashioned as a Western-style democratic government in order to be a Government?
To help answer these questions, I am going to borrow some words from a lecture by Richard Feynman (recorded in the book The Meaning of It All):
"No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race."In other words, a government does not necessarily need to involve all of the intricacies and specifics of contemporary North American or European democracies to function well as a Government. It is more important that the government functions as a catalyst for societal progress and survival. Because there is no absolute certainty with regard to the results of decisions made with societal improvement and global sustainability in mind, it is important that governments incorporate trial and error and allow for debate.
To do otherwise will result in a government that stifles society and conflicts with human nature. Without meaningful input from its body politic a government will have a tendency to get inexorably locked into singular train of decisions (or try to avoid that its approach has limitations) and therefore be more likely to lose its relevance as an Institution or run into friction with other Institutions. Furthermore, any government that for example dictates or actively suppresses artistic freedom of expression is limiting the ability of its body politic to experience life and develop its own culture - arguably the very point of having a society in the first place.
Thus, a government, which does not uphold the fundamental democratic principles of debate and freedom of expression, is likely to fall short in its Institutional role as a Government and thereby disrupt attempts to address sustainability issues even if members of the society recognize the issues at hand.
Coming up, I will discuss the Economy, which is perhaps both the oldest and most modern Institution in human history.
Cheers,
Sean
Table of Contents for the Global Sustainability series:
No comments:
Post a Comment