The term political system, as defined by Britannica, is “the set of formal legal institutions that comprise a “government” or a “state.” More broadly defined, it comprehends actual, as well as prescribed, forms of political behavior, not only the legal organization of the state, but also the realities of political life. Still more broadly defined, the political system is seen as a set of “processes of interaction” or as a subsystem of the social system interacting with other, non-political systems, such as the economic system.”
It was exactly one of the points in my previous entry, differently stated and now receiving corroboration in an alternative reformulation, highlighting the reasons for the disconnect between theory and practice. Like Britannica’s “political system,” political philosophy, even of the best possible kind, exists in a vacuum for as long as it has not been applied among the realities of political life. Once it has been applied, however, it finds itself not as the mistress of the house, as it desires to be, but only as one of the all-too-many factors all becoming subject to the above-mentioned “processes of interaction” as a “subsystem of the social system,” which is far more difficult to control.
Quoting Britannica, “the most important type of political system is the nation-state.” It is indeed the most stable and integrated state of political organization, if seen in a vacuum, that is, in isolation from the other political realities of the supranational kind. But, in reality, we will be hard-pressed to find more than a few reasonably outlined nation-states either in the modern world, or in antiquity. Iceland may be cited as one, but if we get, say, to Belgium, which, back in 1830, taught us something about the stability of nation-states, the situation suddenly becomes complicated. Is a bilingual nation, like Belgium, a true nation-state? Or, is Canada a stable nation-state? Returning to Europe, we will find that the great powers, such as Germany or France, have been too much changed by multicultural immigration to meet the strict definition of “nation-state.” Like the term “capitalism,” the term “nation-state” may have become a chimera!
On the other hand, Britannica gives a rather unflattering treatment to the supranational term empire: “All empires, since they are composed of peoples of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds, are ultimately held together by coercion and the threat of forcible reconquest.”
This sounds like a rather old-fashioned, and even outdated, pronouncement, ever since the fall of the British and Soviet Empires, revived today mostly through the exploits of American neo-imperialism, but only with some substantial qualifications. It is much more interesting nowadays to revisit our Britannica, ignoring the specific term “empire,” but looking at such commonplace entities that “are composed of peoples of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds,” whether historically, or by reason of massive immigration. In the current multicultural Russian Federation, the word “Federation” provides the initial key: It is reasonable to expect that local cultures would enjoy a quasi-dominance within the respective federated states: Kalmyk culture in Kalmykia, Chechen culture in Chechnya, Jewish culture in the Jewish Autonomy, etc., although the Russian language is obviously omnipresent as the principal official language of the Russian Federation. But whether they live within their ethnic borders or outside them, all these diverse peoples living under one national roof are reasonably well accustomed and accepting of the fact that the Great-Russians are the dominant culture in the Federation, and do not really seek independence and self-determination, except for random outbursts of recklessness, occasional posturing and quite often these days direct and indirect hostile foreign intervention. Now, on the other side of the fence, lies the American multicultural entity, millions of whose citizens every day commit the unthinkable act, from the Russian standpoint, of identifying themselves as citizens of other nations and not as Americans either by virtue of double citizenship or having no American citizenship at all, and such conflicting national loyalties are very difficult and, as I would argue, impossible to reconcile, even if these people themselves see nothing wrong or at least strange in this.
Among the political systems of today there are dictatorships, oligarchies, constitutional democracies of the... well, non-Western type, and constitutional democracies of the Western type. It’s very tempting to look most favorably upon the last sort as the paragons of a “perfect government,” but the picture is hardly that simple. Winston Churchill famously joked about Western democracy being the least effectual form of government, which he, however, preferred to all others. This does not negate the fact that such democracy does not offer to the world the best type of “government” per se, which was exactly Churchill’s point.
This is not to say of course, that, democracy being unsuitable for perfect government, such government is to be found among some other, less attractive, but more efficient kind. It only proves that an ideal government has no historical precedent, nor can it be found in existence today, and so the practical question as to what kind of governing ought to be considered the best is a perennially wide open one, and it is also relative to the world’s particular cultures, which is to say that it cannot be happily generalized.
It was exactly one of the points in my previous entry, differently stated and now receiving corroboration in an alternative reformulation, highlighting the reasons for the disconnect between theory and practice. Like Britannica’s “political system,” political philosophy, even of the best possible kind, exists in a vacuum for as long as it has not been applied among the realities of political life. Once it has been applied, however, it finds itself not as the mistress of the house, as it desires to be, but only as one of the all-too-many factors all becoming subject to the above-mentioned “processes of interaction” as a “subsystem of the social system,” which is far more difficult to control.
Quoting Britannica, “the most important type of political system is the nation-state.” It is indeed the most stable and integrated state of political organization, if seen in a vacuum, that is, in isolation from the other political realities of the supranational kind. But, in reality, we will be hard-pressed to find more than a few reasonably outlined nation-states either in the modern world, or in antiquity. Iceland may be cited as one, but if we get, say, to Belgium, which, back in 1830, taught us something about the stability of nation-states, the situation suddenly becomes complicated. Is a bilingual nation, like Belgium, a true nation-state? Or, is Canada a stable nation-state? Returning to Europe, we will find that the great powers, such as Germany or France, have been too much changed by multicultural immigration to meet the strict definition of “nation-state.” Like the term “capitalism,” the term “nation-state” may have become a chimera!
On the other hand, Britannica gives a rather unflattering treatment to the supranational term empire: “All empires, since they are composed of peoples of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds, are ultimately held together by coercion and the threat of forcible reconquest.”
This sounds like a rather old-fashioned, and even outdated, pronouncement, ever since the fall of the British and Soviet Empires, revived today mostly through the exploits of American neo-imperialism, but only with some substantial qualifications. It is much more interesting nowadays to revisit our Britannica, ignoring the specific term “empire,” but looking at such commonplace entities that “are composed of peoples of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds,” whether historically, or by reason of massive immigration. In the current multicultural Russian Federation, the word “Federation” provides the initial key: It is reasonable to expect that local cultures would enjoy a quasi-dominance within the respective federated states: Kalmyk culture in Kalmykia, Chechen culture in Chechnya, Jewish culture in the Jewish Autonomy, etc., although the Russian language is obviously omnipresent as the principal official language of the Russian Federation. But whether they live within their ethnic borders or outside them, all these diverse peoples living under one national roof are reasonably well accustomed and accepting of the fact that the Great-Russians are the dominant culture in the Federation, and do not really seek independence and self-determination, except for random outbursts of recklessness, occasional posturing and quite often these days direct and indirect hostile foreign intervention. Now, on the other side of the fence, lies the American multicultural entity, millions of whose citizens every day commit the unthinkable act, from the Russian standpoint, of identifying themselves as citizens of other nations and not as Americans either by virtue of double citizenship or having no American citizenship at all, and such conflicting national loyalties are very difficult and, as I would argue, impossible to reconcile, even if these people themselves see nothing wrong or at least strange in this.
Among the political systems of today there are dictatorships, oligarchies, constitutional democracies of the... well, non-Western type, and constitutional democracies of the Western type. It’s very tempting to look most favorably upon the last sort as the paragons of a “perfect government,” but the picture is hardly that simple. Winston Churchill famously joked about Western democracy being the least effectual form of government, which he, however, preferred to all others. This does not negate the fact that such democracy does not offer to the world the best type of “government” per se, which was exactly Churchill’s point.
This is not to say of course, that, democracy being unsuitable for perfect government, such government is to be found among some other, less attractive, but more efficient kind. It only proves that an ideal government has no historical precedent, nor can it be found in existence today, and so the practical question as to what kind of governing ought to be considered the best is a perennially wide open one, and it is also relative to the world’s particular cultures, which is to say that it cannot be happily generalized.
No comments:
Post a Comment