Why are humans political?
Various scholars offer various answers to that question. Jonah Goldberg attributes politics, more or
less, to a natural tendency to acquire what one wants. A lot of politics manifests itself, according
to him, by people taking what they want or protecting themselves or those who
are similar to themselves from others taking what they want. Political leaders are simply stationary
bandits who have understood that they can steal more if they allow their victims
to produce and take from them little by little in the form of taxes.[1]
This is a fairly grim view. But there are other views. According to Daniel Elazar, there are three
reasons.
Human … concern with politics focuses
on three general themes; the pursuit of political justice to achieve political
order; the search for understanding of the empirical reality of political power
and its exercise; and the creation of an appropriate civic environment through
civil society and civil community capable of integrating the first two themes
to produce the good political life.[2]
This language is not grim at all; it’s almost noble. It is not divorced from reality – see the
second theme – but attempts to draw that reality, and its related
practicalities, to normative values and principles. Elazar goes on to claim that it is
federalism, as a mental construct concerned with governance and politics, that encompasses
all three of these themes.
Here, one is helped in understanding
the origins of political theories to reflect how the various views fall among
categories of theories. For example,
there are organic theories. They are
theories that analogize political – usually national – arrangements as organic
entities with a head – the political/governmental organ – and the rest of the
polity being made up of the other elements of the body politic. That is, each individual or group functions
to provide its contribution to the health of the overall organic whole – the
polity – much like organs in a human body.
Another
category of theory is the natural rights category. These theories basically rely on the natural
proclivity of people to make choices that advance their individual
interests. People never knowingly choose
against themselves, but they vary greatly on how to define their
interests. At times, they might choose
to “sacrifice” what ostensibly would counteract their interests, but not in how
they see their realities and their options.
For example, a loving mother will sacrifice her life to save her child
because living with the knowledge she did not would be worse.
But usually
the stakes are not so drastic or negative.
Instead, people choose between or among options that offer positive
outcomes or between positive and negative outcomes. The person picks the best choice he/she can
act on and/or afford. Of course, as
pointed out above, some choose illegal options in which, perhaps being unable
to afford an option is not much of a concern.
Federalism,
according to Elazar, in its treatment of governance and politics accounts for
these categories. It borrows from
organic theories in that, in ways that will shortly be described, highlight the
collective – preferably referred to as the communal – sense that people rely on
the combined resources of a population to accomplish their combined and
individual goals and aims.
It also parallels
natural rights’ individualism in that federalist polities are the outcome of
individuals or individual groups coming together, as equal parties, to agree on
terms by which a new arrangement is formed to accomplish or advance identified
purposes. Within this arrangement, each
party retains his/her/their integrity as a choice-making entity capable of forming
consent with others.
While
federalism does draw from both views, it defines the key aspects of such an arrangement
in its own way. For example, liberty is
not natural liberty – a liberty akin to what animals have, doing what immediate
desires call for – but federal liberty that can be best defined as the right to
do what one should do in terms of the agreement that sets up the federation
under which these parties have joined. A
federation depends on its participants willfully acting in accordance with its
initial agreement. That is, each entity
is a willing partner.
So, by this
combination, a student of politics cannot solely rely on behavioral – seek
rewards and avoid punishments – analysis of political behavior – study that
utilizes positivist methods (statistical analysis) – or rely on purely
historical study that looks back at what and how the organic whole reacted to
prior challenges. All methods need to be
used. Federalism does not preclude the
value of varied approaches to the study of governance and politics.[3]
Teachers of
civics who are guided by the federalist construct – federation theory – are
assisted by the use of these combined concerns – of reality and the normative –
and can deal with not only the “what” and “how” questions, but also with the “should”
questions. That is, within this basis
for the study of governance and politics, students can readily deal with values
questions. By doing so, teachers can
introduce moral questions.
But, as this
blog has often pointed out, federalist thought, which during most of the
nation’s history, was the dominant view, the natural rights view holds
dominance today among the American populous.
But Elazar offers some hope for those who would want a reemergence of
federalism. He writes:
Federalism is resurfacing as a political
force because it serves well the principle that there are no simple majorities
or minorities but that all majorities are compounded of congeries of groups,
and the corollary principle of minority rights, which not only protects the
possibility for minorities to preserve themselves but force majorities to be
compound rather than artificially simple.
It serves those principles by emphasizing the consensual basis of the
polity and the importance of liberty in the constitution and maintenance of
democratic republics.[4]
Or, stated another way, federalism leads to a view of
governance and politics that adds grand nuance to its related processes. It allows for suitable complexity that is
less likely to short-change what is facing a people at any given time.
The current political hoopla
questions Elazar’s claim. At the time of
his writing these words, the world seemed to be approaching a global
perspective. Since then, nationalism has
made a comeback. Whether that new
leaning has been established is highly questionable – the western nations seem
to be at a determining point.[5] It turns out, for example, Britain is facing such
indecision with its Brexit effort. There
are already well-established institutions – various global attributes and elements
– that seem to have been baked into the realities of western politics – or is
it global politics?
Exiting those realities are proving
difficult and Elazar’s judgement has not yet been proven wrong. “[P]eoples must live together whether they
like it or not and even aspire to do [so] democratically … [P]eoples and states
throughout the world are looking for federal solutions to the problems of
political integration within a democratic framework.”[6] Federalism is not an easy option, but neither
is politics or being political.
[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide
of the West: How the Rebirth of
Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American
Democracy (New York, NY: Crown
Forum, 2018).
[2] Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring
Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL: The
University of Alabama Press, 1987), 1.
[3] While this is true, federalism does have a bias
toward historical study – a lot of it comprising of historical document
analysis. In terms of using federation
theory as a guide for civics instruction, historical reviews seem most
appropriate for the bulk of such study.
[5] The next round of elections among the western
democracies will be telling on this score.
[6] Daniel J.
Elazar, Exploring Federalism, 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment