Efficient Rule

  

  

Every country needs efficient rule. This is especially important for nations in competition for power with others. It decides which nation is strongest. How this efficacy is achieved is dependent on things like culture, world location, degree of development and above all historical phase. I have earlier talked about how rule changes or should change as the political decline progresses. But I have not been sufficiently clear. In the following I will focus on developed countries. I will relate efficient rule to three phases of politics during mature and late modernity. In order to gain an understandable generalized overview over this vast and complicated topic things will be somewhat simplified. I will not burden the reader with historical examples, just say that the models serving as basis primarily are the modernities in the Greco-Roman and the First and Second Chinese Civilizations supplemented with extrapolations of our own modernity.

 

Modernities, in our case from ca 1800 to 2100, can be divided into three overall phases: a) Early, b) Mature and c) Late or declining modernity. A decline of politics characterizes the last of these phases. The degree of maturity in the second phase depends on which civilization we look at. The Second Chinese Civilization and the present global Second European Civilization have reached the highest levels, in our case perhaps 1900-2000, some countries from 1945.

 

During early modernity we had unbalanced relations between societal and political groupings resulting in conflicts and revolutions. This was gradually stabilized during the following phase of political maturity. It happened through an absolutely crucial partitioning of power. This was both between different institutionalized powers like courts, lawmaking and governments and between representations of different classes and interest-groups. Groups without representation were also involved in the shaping of laws. The balancing of society and the political system happened both through institutional balances / checks and through political surveillance of governments from oppositions and public opinion. You could say that the pluralism of societies was accommodated by making sure that institutions and politics mirrored the societal pluralism: rule itself was pluralistic i.e. collective.

 

This could be implemented through western representational democracy where the different societal groups elected and were guided by their political parties. But political pluralism could also be achieved in other ways, e.g. through one-party collective leaderships.

 

These systems functioned relatively well, but only as long as society and politics were mature. What this means is easier to see when we look at the following post-mature phase of declining late modernity.

 

The French philosopher Lyotard and others have suggested that we are entering a “postmodern” time, where belief in the political and religious ideologies disappear. But this vision mostly fits the intellectual elites and is a far too simple picture. Politics is certainly not dead yet. Neither is modernity.

 

We can divide late modernity and its political development into two sub-phases:

 

1) The present extreme polarization of societies and politics. It is not postmodern in the sense of lost interest in politics. As described in my earlier posts, politics becomes very simplified, but political (and religious) interest is not reduced. On the contrary, it is immensely increased and affects almost all. Even the once self-declared “postmodern” intellectuals become re-politicized and participate in the shitstorms. Every citizen and politician repeat the same predictable stereotypical extreme arguments and counter-arguments. People are no longer guided by responsible parties, but become puppets of the extreme opinions of other people and demagogues.

 

2) It is not until the second sub-phase of late modernity that interest in politics per se begins to disappear. But it is not replaced by a postmodern indifference. Meanings are as strong as before, but now they are no longer about the choice of policy. Instead the question is which person should be the ruler of one or more nations. Politics may be used as an argument, but both politics and parties are reduced to mere tools for power-hungry personalities. Rudiments of this are visible already now, but we have not yet arrived in this sub-phase.

 

That late modernity has this division into the two sub-phases, implies two different answers to what efficient rule is, one for each sub-phase. In the present polarized sub-phase the division or rupture of society has risen to levels which must be controlled. This can happen through a continuation of the pluralistic rule from mature modernity, but with the crucial difference, that it must now be authoritarian. In mature modernity societal and political diversities were accommodated. In the present first sub-phase of late modernity they must be controlled. Pluralistic rule must absolutely be continued, but with a reduction of influence of the political extremes. In two- or multiparty countries this implies that the center-oriented parts of the main political parties together exert a mildly authoritarian power. The political parties should be freed of influence of radicals. Formal power can shift between the parties via elections, but they should agree on important basics. Parties at the extremes must similarly be controlled, but not be outlawed. Angry people should be guided, but they need to have a voice. No attempt to crush them can succeed. The internet must be partly controlled to make sure that the angry voices and their fake news don’t get echoed and amplified and propagated.

 

In America this would mean that moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats de facto get rid of or better subdue their extreme wings and make an implicit alliance, which despite nominal elections controls society and politics in a moderately authoritarian manner. Obviously, a development like this is very unlikely in the United States. It may be too late now where the extremists in the GOP are taking over the party.

 

In one-party ruled countries the pluralistic authoritarian rule can naturally be in continuation of the collective rule of mature modernity.

 

 I repeat, in the present polarized first sub-phase of late modernity nations must still be ruled collectively in one- or multiparty conditions as they were in the preceding mature phase. But in order to ensure a degree of cohesion and inner and outer strength a certain degree of authoritarian rule is necessary. Here it is very important to distinguish between a) collective authoritarian rule and b) autocratic one-man rule. As long as societies and leaders are focused on politics and are divided and polarized, it is necessary that governance should encompass different opinions. Even though the extremes must be subdued, there should be a pluralistic/collective rule by people representing a certain width of diverging views. It is too narrow if only one person decides. In that case important societal and political forces are kept out of influence. This will result in counter-pressure, unrest, destabilization and sudden changes of power. 

 

Our goal in the present difficult times of trouble must be to keep our countries as stable as possible as long as possible through a measured control. The alternative is internal and external chaos and widespread suffering which will add to the effects of climate change. 

 

It is not until the last sub-phase of declining modernity where interest in politics per se disappears, that autocratic one-man rule can succeed and ultimately - in the universal empire after the end of modernity - become a lasting solution. One ruler can only hope to represent whole society, when politics is dead.