Politics in One World
by James W. Skillen
Last summer, the author spoke at an international conference held in The Netherlands on "Christianity and Cultures," sponsored by the international association for Christian philosophy that publishes the journal Philosophia Reformata. The following edited excerpts are taken from an article that will appear in the journal this fall.
From this point of view, we should focus on what constitutes just governance at different stages of historical development under different social and cultural conditions. Democracy, for example, is not an end in itself. It is neither the trans-historical ideal for political society nor the "end of history." It is only one ingredient of political accountability and participation in a certain kind of polity. For government in a complex society to do justice to all, it must in one way or another become separate from, and disinterested in, the sacral institutions, the races, the clans, the non-government institutions, and the private properties of its citizens. Otherwise, public-legal solidarity cannot be achieved because government will inevitably be taking the side or advancing the interests of one tribe over another, of one church or religion over another, of one set of property interests over another, of one interest group over another, of one school system over another.
The continuing struggle today to hold Nigeria together, for example, reflects the fact that a strong, constitutional state has not yet been established there. Technologically, economically, and ethnically speaking, Nigeria is a complex, diversified country. Yet despite having the trappings of a constitutional republic and having had some democratically elected governments, including that of current President Olusegun Obasanjo, the national government has not yet been able to build a sufficiently independent, disinterested public community above the major tribal communities, religions, and economic interests that fill the territory. Under British rule, more than 250 tribes were enclosed in a territory that was named Nigeria in 1914. Kayode Ogundamisi, a leader of the Oodua Liberation Movement (OPC), which is currently seeking independence, said recently, "Nigeria is not a nation. It is the Yoruba nation, the Ibo nation, the Fulani nation. If Nigeria had been in Europe, you would have four nations" (The Washington Post, 29 January 2000).
The mere existence of multiple tribes or nations does not make impossible the creation of a single state, of course. What is required is that the political system, which encompasses those nations, does justice to each one and sustains the confidence of each, uniting them in a larger body politic, a trans-tribal solidarity, that advances the well-being of all. With independence after World War II, Nigeria adopted a federal constitution and a democratic electoral system. When elected governments failed, the military regularly stepped in to rule by sheer force. Democratic participation in the federal government is crucial for Nigeria, because all the people have to be convinced that they have a voice in that government and a share in the federal commonwealth. The question is whether a state must first be built to make democratic participation possible, or whether a just state can be built only through highly conflictual democratic struggles.
Russia represents a different kind of struggle for and against a constitutional, rule-of-law state. President Vladimir Putin promised "to put the Russian economy, and its vast national wealth, under the rule of law, with equal opportunities and conditions for all" (The New York Times, 19 March 2000). He made an election-campaign vow to do away with insider control by capitalist oligarchs, who have corrupted government and kept others from equal participation. "It is necessary," he said, "to prevent anyone from latching on to power and being able to use it for their own purpose." These statements clearly articulate the need for disinterested, publicly minded government under the rule of law, not controlled by one or more interest groups or the military, and doing justice to all. However, the evidence is not yet in that Putin has moved Russia beyond a corrupt oligarchy or an authoritarian leader toward an open society under the rule of law.
The argument for moving beyond ecclesiastical control of government, beyond property (or capital) owners' control, beyond ethnic-nationalist or tribal control, and beyond totalitarian-party control is that government should increasingly become a public integrating authority that is disinvested in any of the particular, non-political institutions and associations of society. This is part of what constitutes the healthy meaning of the "rule of law." Historically speaking, this phrase contrasts primarily with the words "arbitrary" and "self-aggrandizing." Arbitrariness is a characteristic of authoritarian governments that are not bound by constitutional limits, judicial restraints, or electoral accountability and that seek the interests of the office-holders rather than those of the public. Democratic systems of government came to be identified with the rule of law because legislative bodies, accountable to the electorate and to certain non-arbitrary, basic-law principles, were entrusted with law-making authority to bind the executive and make public dealings more transparent. Government, in this sense, must serve the public good. Everyone, including the executive, must be subject to the law.
In constitutional systems with a process of judicial review, the rule of law was strengthened even further. All of this was part of what now helps to define the worldwide desire for disinterestedness, transparency, representativeness, and accountability at both national and international levels. What began as a process of writing constitutions in the American colonies more than 400 years ago (with deeper roots going back to the English Magna Carta) is now evident in UN documents, regional covenants and treaties, and basic laws of individual states.
Christians in different cultural contexts should argue that the "rule of law" means a governance structure that requires equal civil rights protection for every person and the proper legal recognition and protection of the nongovernmental institutional responsibilities God has given to human beings. To be bound with everyone else in a community whose purpose is to uphold justice for all is an expression of God's gracious patience through the together and through whom rain and sunshine are given to the just and unjust alike. All humans have been created in the divine image and bear joint responsibility for that which God has given them.
Democracy and Political Order
As a means of accountability democracy is a characteristic feature of the modern, constitutional state, which requires modes of civic education and participation that make for meaningful elections. Yet elections are not the only means of sustaining accountability. In democratic polities, political parties have typically been formed and provide another dimension of popular accountability by means of internal party discipline. In the American system, however, political parties are less significant today than they used to be. Especially at the national level, a multitude of interest groups has greater influence in elections and over elected officials than do the political parties. This raises serious questions about the meaning of representative government. If, even in a substantially transparent democracy, special or particular interests can exercise a stronger influence on government than do citizens through political parties and elections, is not the public trust—the body politic—threatened by unrepresentative government, by a government more oriented to brokering private interests than to serving the public interest?
In Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, and Venezuela the challenge to democracy has been government corruption. In Venezuela corruption had become so great that Hugo Chavez was able to gain popular support for a new constitution that gives him many autocratic powers in order to try to create a more just state. Popular disgruntlement in this case is with a small, wealthy elite that previously controlled government in its own interests. The question is that becomes increasingly transparent and democratically open or whether he will use his almost unlimited power to build a new autocracy.
Politics in differentiated societies anywhere in the world ought to be conducted by means of open, public debates and fair, open elections, with all adult citizens free to participate. Yet this presupposes that the legal, social, economic, and cultural structure of such a society prepares citizens for participation. It also presupposes that a public solidarity is being, or has been, developed, to make possible the trust and commitment of most citizens to something higher than their own class or tribe or economic interest. Christians everywhere should be working for governments that are prohibited by a basic law from claiming omni-competent authority. They should advocate states that are empowered to exercise disinterested service on behalf of the common good. And this must always include recognition and legal protection of those human responsibilities and spheres of society that lie beyond the state.
International Politics
An assessment of what constitutes just public governance must also increasingly take into consideration the international public (dis)order. The greater the differentiation and development of all non-political spheres of life and the greater the economic, technological, military, environmental, and informational interdependence of peoples and states, the more urgent become the questions of transnational justice and governance. As Michael Sandel puts it ("America's Search for a New Public Philosophy," Atlantic Monthly, March, 1996): "In a world where capital and goods, information and images, pollution and people, flow across national boundaries with unprecedented ease, politics must assume transnational, even global, forms, if only to keep up. Otherwise, economic power will go unchecked by democratically sanctioned political power. Nation-states, traditionally the vehicles of self-government, will find themselves increasingly unable to bring their citizens' judgments to bear on the economic forces that govern destinies."
Development of the European Community (EC) is an especially dynamic illustration of this fact in our day. Questions about the welfare, health, and education policies of the EC require answers of a normative kind about the plural structure of society and the proper distribution of responsibilities between national and European governments. This also means that the more the EC becomes a publicly integrated entity beyond a mere trade zone, the greater its need for a strong legislative branch of government at the federal level in which the people are adequately represented through elections. The same can be said for international integration in other regions and on a global scale. The more that issues of global finance, trade, environment, war and peace, and migration determine the conditions of political life inside and among the states of this world, the greater the normative demand for some kind of transnational governance with adequate representation of the people.
Quite in contrast to Sandel, Martin Van Creveld (The Rise and Decline of the State) believes that the crowning political achievement of the West is the state itself, and now that it is in decline, he anticipates negative consequences. "As the modern state abandons the commanding heights which it reached between 1945 and 1975, some of its most characteristic institutions are likely to decline." Among these institutions are state-owned enterprises; social security systems; the justice system; the prison system; the armed forces; the police; public schools; publicly owned media; and the statistical apparatus. "In one way or another, these and other services are being cut back all over the world."
With regard to Van Creveld's complaint about the cutbacks in public education, he fails to notice something important. If governments throughout the world come to recognize that education is delivered most responsibly by non-government schools and restrict allow a diversity of school systems to flourish under conditions of equal justice for all, then the decline of government- run public schools may be a sign of health, not a sign of decline or failure. Of course, in some parts of the world, at certain stages of societal differentiation, governments may need to exert a more direct role in initiating and governing education in order to overcome illiteracy and to nurture basic, civic education. But good government does not require overly bureaucratic and all-controlling states.
Conclusion
The chief questions of domestic and international politics in our time, especially in countries where people are oppressed, without a guarantee of either human-rights protection or a voice in government, should certainly be answered by affirming the universal legitimacy of representation of the people in the affairs of government and the protection of basic human rights. Yet these are only two components of the answer and they go hand in hand with other social, economic, and governmental conditions. We should also affirm that justice must be done to people in all their human capacities and responsibilities so they can eat and work, raise children and worship, breathe clean air and drink clean water, and creatively develop their diverse capabilities. This means affirming the international order. Cultural variability only underlines, rather than undermines, the universal demands of public justice as societies unfold to ever greater complexity and become ever more interdependent in God's one world which we all share.
