INTRODUCTION
I am often using phenomena and developments in other earlier civilizations to elucidate and understand what is happening and will happen in our civilization. Generalized, civilizations can serve as models for each other. This can be the case for the civilization as a whole or only for certain phases in their overall development or certain aspects within a phase.
To recapitulate, human history has seen more than ten great civilizations, each with a duration of at least 1500 years.
Examples
The First Mesopotamian Civilization ca. 3000 - 1500 BC
The Greco-Roman Civilization or First European Civilization ca. 1300 BC to AD 500.
The First Chinese Civilization ca. 1500 BC to AD 200, and the Second ca. year 0 to 1900.
On the large scale the civilizations run in parallel with comparable phases and developments, just displaced in time. Thus the Greco-Roman Civilization goes through the same developments 2100 years before we do. The First Chinese Civilization 2300 years before, the Second 900, the Oriental Civilization 1000 years and so on.
But crucially, they are not copies of each other. Each civilization has what we may call its own unique soul or mind-set. Besides, they have different experiences which also shape them individually. Civilizations must not be understood and defined in an Aristotelean manner as all containing the same fixed set of necessary and sufficient characteristics. A prototypical definition is more suited. This entails a not clearly delimited number of characteristics. Not all are shared by all civilizations. This means that they can resemble each other in different degrees, both as wholes and in certain phases and in certain aspects. Two civilizations can look quite dissimilar, but they both have similarities with the prototype which is the average of them all. It is also important that a word which for some historians denotes a phenomenon is often better seen as name for a phase within a civilization. An example is “feudalism”. For some this is a phenomenon with an exact definition corresponding precisely to the European condition in medieval times. We instead see it as a phase, a phase which does entail large landowners, but can vary in shape between civilizations. Importantly it lies at a specified time in their histories 800 years before modernity. It is accompanied by certain developments in other spheres, for example religious theorizing. Thus to be identified as a certain phenomenon and a phase in a civilization it must contain certain characteristics AND coexist with certain other phenomena AND come at a certain time compared to certain other phases. Such considerations also mean that absolute kingdom when seen as a phase cannot be equated with all examples of hereditary autocratic rule.
Modernities are like other periods characterized by conflicts within and between countries, but they must also lie at a specific time-span in each civilization. And they must be accompanied by rationalism, political ideas and progress in science and technology.
Despite the differences the similarities between civilizations are so big that by looking at them we can gain understanding of our own Western or Second European Civilization which is now global. Previous ones can serve as models depending on their relatedness. In some cases a specific civilization does not deliver a good model for us. This can be caused by:
1) our lack of knowledge.
2) the civilization is not closely mentally related.
3) nomadic invasions.
4) disasters.
In understanding our case as a whole the Greco-Roman Civilization and the First and Second Chinese Civilizations are good models. These are closely related to our own. Others like the Oriental Civilization seem less related. The Indus Valley Civilization is also a bad model, but only because of the lack of knowledge about it.
Looking more narrowly at our absolute kings from roughly 1600 to 1800 the Mayan city-states in the Meso-American Civilization is a good model. But in understanding the break-down of this system the Mayans are a bad model because of their agricultural disaster.
Even more specifically, in understanding the scientific developments in our modernity, both the modernities in the Greco-Roman Civilization, the Oriental Civilization and the two Chinese Civilizations are good models.
It is fascinating that in most cases the two European and the two Chinese civilizations, i.e. those at the two ends of Eurasia are those which most closely resemble each other.
CHECKS AND BALANCES MONOPOLIZED
To elucidate present internal political conditions in the United States the modernities in the Greco-Roman Civilization, especially the Roman Republic, and the Second Chinese Civilization, especially the Song Dynasty can serve as good models. In this case the models not only help us understand our own development. They can also help us avoid mistakes and change the course and thus affect our future.
In these three cases, Rome, Song and United States, we have an elaborated system of checks and balances in admirable attempts to hinder monopolies of power and to achieve a balance between societal groups and opinions. Here it must be noted that China in the Song-dynasty most of the time was a constitutional monarchy with limited power to the emperor.
But in all three cases these power-sharing constitutions came /comes under pressure. In our case we see attacks on the partitioning into three powers proposed by Montesquieu. A magical word today is“overreach”. Institutions which are part of the checks an balances are accused of overreach if they limit the power of a party or group. Such controlling institutions are seen as not controls, but as competitors for power. This can indeed become the case as political parties try to monopolize these institutions. This is evident in the present United States as it was in the Roman Republic and in Song. Another bad word is “deep state”, i.e. an administrative apparatus of a certain size with experience, experts and written and unwritten procedures and traditions. This is seen as an enemy and opponent because it can hinder the worst effects of irresponsible political attempts to alter society in a radical way.
In Rome the fight for control of institutions ultimately overstressed the constitution and led to the end of the Republic in a crescendo of violence. The developments in the United States are correspondingly getting out of hand and can move the same way unless especially the Republican Party is reformed.
In the following I reuse parts of an earlier post which sketched developments in the Roman Republic and America.
The Roman constitution was a complicated mixture of different positions of power like Senate, Peoples Assembly, Consuls and Peoples Tribune, some having been added at new situations in history demanding a share of power to new societal forces. Together such institutions secured an intricate system of checks and balances like the American Constitution.
In the Song constitution power was balanced between the Prime minister(s), other ministers often from political oppositions, Secretariate, endless controls and rewritings of law-proposals, emperor, Censors (= Ombudsmen), Remonstrance Office, public opinion and even protests from university students just to mention some.
Obviously such systems risk causing instability and inaction and inability to handle internal and foreign threats. For such situations the Roman constitution allowed the employment of a time-limited and accountable dictator. In Song China a time-limited de facto dictator often emerged in times of crises. It could typically be the prime minister.
All three systems of balance and mutual control were admirable and the constitutions functioned reasonably well for a long time. But at a certain point the tensions in society and the polarization between people from the two major political parties a) Peoples Party / Democrats / Reformists and b) Senate Party / Republicans / Conservatives became too big. The tension and polarity could not any longer be channeled through and within the means of the Constitution. This happened in Rome around 130 BC, in China around 1100 and in America around 2000. At this point different institutions of the state risk to be monopolized by one party while others try to remain neutral controls, and again others are used by the other party. They make opposing decisions and try to obstruct each other. This increases societal and political tensions further. As said this process began in Rome from around 130 BC and is now increasingly clear in the United States. The Democrat left and the Republican right have their opposing extreme agendas, the neutral FBI tries to carry on its duties, the two chambers of Congress are often overtaken by opposite parties unwilling to compromise, Supreme Court is taken over by conservatives. We even see a tendency for the courts in different states and on different levels to become political. Such developments can be expected to continue and worsen and create much bitterness on the street and between the parties. Politicians will use drastic means to get and keep control of institutions and positions and to seize them from other politicians. One of the reasons why things went so utterly bad in Rome was that this republic was not very deep and thus lacked an important stabilizing factor. Therefore it is dangerous that US politicians work to undermine the hated deep state.
Once more we must ask whether a such development is necessary? And once more the Second Chinese modernity during the Song Dynasty sticks out. In the decades around 1100 there also here was an extreme and dangerous polarization between left-wing Reformists and right-wing Conservatives. The parties monopolized the power-sharing institutions and launched countless impeachment procedures against opponents.
But then came the catastrophic military defeat to Jin around 1130 resulting in a major territorial loss. After this the internal political turmoils continued in new forms. But gradually the political polarizations eased a little. Certainly not to zero. The“Roman”and “American” malpractices continued and at times made some institutional controls ineffective and untrustworthy. But the internal tensions did not lead to the Roman end in the form of a hereditary universal dictatorship under emperors. There can be more reasons for this. One was the very deep Song state. Another was that the political landscape was gradually transformed. The two parties were now what we may call the Pragmatists and the Constitutional Neo-Confucian Daoxue- party. The first of these bent the power-sharing principles to meet real needs and circumstances while the latter put the ideal power-sharing above all.
The Song example shows that America does not have to follow the Roman way, where the Republic ended in civil wars and ultimately led to Augustus seizing all power.
