I confess that my particular appetite for the concept of “national interest” has been whetted by certain rather odd patterns in American domestic politics and foreign policy during the last couple of decades. To start off this entry with the most explicit introduction of my key point, here is Wikipedia, defining “national interest” in the following illuminating manner:
“The national interest of a state is multi-faceted. Primary is the state’s survival and security; also important is the pursuit of wealth and economic growth, and power,” etc.
What I like most about it is the part that says “Primary is the state’s survival and security,” which is, of course, a basic tautology, but it goes a long way to distinguish a vital interest from all sorts of frivolous and opportunistic interpretations of the general concept of national interest. From now on, we shall assume that our subject here is “vital interest,” and none other.
Next, we shall see that by focusing on “vital national interest” we are effectively eliminating a multiplicity of alleged “national interests,” which, being several, can easily come into a contradiction among themselves, and through such a contradiction undermine the integrity, and even legitimacy, of the larger concept. As we certainly want to avoid this kind of debacle, we must agree that, provided that we know what we are talking about, all minor instances of national interest must necessarily be treated as representations of one interest, and in order to be able to talk about any ‘minor’ national interest at all, we must have a succinct formulation of that “big one” right there, in the focus of our mental eye.
In other words, it is one interest, indivisible, or else we shall quickly make fools out of ourselves.
Mind you, I am not arguing that some narrow survivalist urge should somehow eliminate all other interests, such as our interest in increased wealth and power, but only that any quest for wealth and power, etc., which might jeopardize our vital interest, must be seen as a bogus quest, and treated as such.
Not surprisingly, all democracies seem to suffer from the same chronic disease of a poorly defined “national interest.” Plurality of interests and their adequate representations are in the driver’s seat, and as a result, one interest, indivisible suffers.
On the other hand totalitarianism as the highest expression of nationalism, assumes the existence of a single, and overriding all, national interest, and insofar as a citizen stands in whole-hearted support of that interest, he is a citizen in good standing, but whenever his personal interest contradicts the common interest, he turns into a criminal in the eyes of the state and society. Stalinist Russia was essentially run on this principle.
Marx’s introduction of the inevitability of class struggle in all pre-communist societies does not contradict the principle of unity of national interest. It is not at all as though several class interests coexisted within a very confused national interest at one time. No, even at the height of an intense class struggle, and, perhaps, especially during such struggle, the unity and indivisibility of the national interest stand out in sharp focus and leave no doubt as to whose side in the struggle upholds it, to the exclusion of all other parties. Indeed, Marx’s inevitability of the historical process, in my view, is totally based on the concept of oneness of the national interest, and the genuine forces of progress are the citizens who hold that interest to heart, whereas their opponents are fighting not just against that other side, but against the common interest of the nation as a whole.
A single national interest naturally coincides with the state interest for the totalitarians, which, in Marxism, triumphs in a successful revolution, leaving the state at the height of its power in all practical applications of the revolutionary transformation of society. In the meantime, the Marxist-Leninist eventual dissolution of the state is a chimera, the most impractical and faulty part of that political doctrine. In fact, no successful revolution can result in a self-destruction of the new order it has imposed, and the new state is the best and only guarantee of the enforcement of the new order.
Incidentally, the concept of separation of powers is not necessarily an anti-totalitarian concept, promoting separate interests within the single framework of society and state, as long as the powers thus “separated” are secondary to the main power of the state and subservient to it. Secret police, as a tool of the State, here becomes a separate power watching over the administrators, the legislators, the military, the justice system etc., but having been given such immense power it itself undergoes periodic sweeping purges, to thwart its ambitions manifested in the natural urge to abuse it.
There is an erroneous tendency, in my view, to somehow equate this hugely important concept of “national interest” with the concept generally expressed by the French term "raison d’État," that is, reason of state, the rather contrived and manipulative term, which often disguises political hypocrisy, deceit, and aggression, and, therefore, cannot serve in good faith to represent the notion of national interest, which has to be more genuine, more wholesome, and more non-intrusive than the other. In other words, national interests have an enduring permanence, whereas raisons d’État are always more fleeting, opportunistic, and never vital, or otherwise they would be spelled out as vital, in the first place. At the same time, national interests are far less in-your-face, far more adaptable to peaceful coexistence within the international sorority of world nations, and, because of their intrinsic legitimacy, they command far more international respect than their disingenuous counterpart of raison d’État, and cannot be too easily mistaken for a quest for hegemony, on the part of their upholders. (To capsulate this paragraph, in my deliberate usage, national interest represents the proper national interest, while “raisons d’État” represent improper interests.)
In conclusion of this entry, I must reassure all readers from Western democracies that I am not advocating a sudden switch to totalitarianism as some kind of blood sacrifice to the idol of national interest. As always, it is my primary intention to make the reader think about it, and perhaps find a way to improve on this crucial political concept’s understanding, thus getting a chance to improve on the workings of democracy, without jeopardizing its principal benefits to democratic societies.
“The national interest of a state is multi-faceted. Primary is the state’s survival and security; also important is the pursuit of wealth and economic growth, and power,” etc.
What I like most about it is the part that says “Primary is the state’s survival and security,” which is, of course, a basic tautology, but it goes a long way to distinguish a vital interest from all sorts of frivolous and opportunistic interpretations of the general concept of national interest. From now on, we shall assume that our subject here is “vital interest,” and none other.
Next, we shall see that by focusing on “vital national interest” we are effectively eliminating a multiplicity of alleged “national interests,” which, being several, can easily come into a contradiction among themselves, and through such a contradiction undermine the integrity, and even legitimacy, of the larger concept. As we certainly want to avoid this kind of debacle, we must agree that, provided that we know what we are talking about, all minor instances of national interest must necessarily be treated as representations of one interest, and in order to be able to talk about any ‘minor’ national interest at all, we must have a succinct formulation of that “big one” right there, in the focus of our mental eye.
In other words, it is one interest, indivisible, or else we shall quickly make fools out of ourselves.
Mind you, I am not arguing that some narrow survivalist urge should somehow eliminate all other interests, such as our interest in increased wealth and power, but only that any quest for wealth and power, etc., which might jeopardize our vital interest, must be seen as a bogus quest, and treated as such.
Not surprisingly, all democracies seem to suffer from the same chronic disease of a poorly defined “national interest.” Plurality of interests and their adequate representations are in the driver’s seat, and as a result, one interest, indivisible suffers.
On the other hand totalitarianism as the highest expression of nationalism, assumes the existence of a single, and overriding all, national interest, and insofar as a citizen stands in whole-hearted support of that interest, he is a citizen in good standing, but whenever his personal interest contradicts the common interest, he turns into a criminal in the eyes of the state and society. Stalinist Russia was essentially run on this principle.
Marx’s introduction of the inevitability of class struggle in all pre-communist societies does not contradict the principle of unity of national interest. It is not at all as though several class interests coexisted within a very confused national interest at one time. No, even at the height of an intense class struggle, and, perhaps, especially during such struggle, the unity and indivisibility of the national interest stand out in sharp focus and leave no doubt as to whose side in the struggle upholds it, to the exclusion of all other parties. Indeed, Marx’s inevitability of the historical process, in my view, is totally based on the concept of oneness of the national interest, and the genuine forces of progress are the citizens who hold that interest to heart, whereas their opponents are fighting not just against that other side, but against the common interest of the nation as a whole.
A single national interest naturally coincides with the state interest for the totalitarians, which, in Marxism, triumphs in a successful revolution, leaving the state at the height of its power in all practical applications of the revolutionary transformation of society. In the meantime, the Marxist-Leninist eventual dissolution of the state is a chimera, the most impractical and faulty part of that political doctrine. In fact, no successful revolution can result in a self-destruction of the new order it has imposed, and the new state is the best and only guarantee of the enforcement of the new order.
Incidentally, the concept of separation of powers is not necessarily an anti-totalitarian concept, promoting separate interests within the single framework of society and state, as long as the powers thus “separated” are secondary to the main power of the state and subservient to it. Secret police, as a tool of the State, here becomes a separate power watching over the administrators, the legislators, the military, the justice system etc., but having been given such immense power it itself undergoes periodic sweeping purges, to thwart its ambitions manifested in the natural urge to abuse it.
There is an erroneous tendency, in my view, to somehow equate this hugely important concept of “national interest” with the concept generally expressed by the French term "raison d’État," that is, reason of state, the rather contrived and manipulative term, which often disguises political hypocrisy, deceit, and aggression, and, therefore, cannot serve in good faith to represent the notion of national interest, which has to be more genuine, more wholesome, and more non-intrusive than the other. In other words, national interests have an enduring permanence, whereas raisons d’État are always more fleeting, opportunistic, and never vital, or otherwise they would be spelled out as vital, in the first place. At the same time, national interests are far less in-your-face, far more adaptable to peaceful coexistence within the international sorority of world nations, and, because of their intrinsic legitimacy, they command far more international respect than their disingenuous counterpart of raison d’État, and cannot be too easily mistaken for a quest for hegemony, on the part of their upholders. (To capsulate this paragraph, in my deliberate usage, national interest represents the proper national interest, while “raisons d’État” represent improper interests.)
In conclusion of this entry, I must reassure all readers from Western democracies that I am not advocating a sudden switch to totalitarianism as some kind of blood sacrifice to the idol of national interest. As always, it is my primary intention to make the reader think about it, and perhaps find a way to improve on this crucial political concept’s understanding, thus getting a chance to improve on the workings of democracy, without jeopardizing its principal benefits to democratic societies.
No comments:
Post a Comment