In its strive to attain a
more community-based society, liberated federalism as a construct that
describes and explains governance and politics, promotes communal democracy. It is an attribute that finds a certain
degree of challenge in establishing itself in modern America due to the diversity
in the nation’s population. That is, the
more diverse communities are, the more difficult it is to find common messaging
and shared aspirations that are essential elements of any community.
At times, such diversification
– often the product of immigration – might even stray into illegal practices
that might be acceptable from which said immigrants might originate, but not
here. For example, according to Wikipedia, under certain
conditions, forced marriages are practiced in various countries. They are Syria, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.[1]
That practice is illegal in the US.
The question this posting addresses is: how does liberated federalism address this
eventuality? A scholar who addressed
the needs of a communal democracy, Philip Selznick,[2]
provides sound advice for nations so challenged and would want to encourage
high levels of communal democracy.
In order to find a
workable solution to the diversity issue, he writes: “[t]o sustain community as framework for the
whole of life and for flourishing of multiple groups, a transition must be made
from piety to civility, and from bounded to inclusive altruism. Communal democracy with its moderated
pluralism is the political expression of that transition.”[3]
And the liberated
federalist perspective presented in this account claims that a union of
political elements at any level – local, state, or nation – must have a
corresponding level of cultural congruence that legitimizes the efforts of that
union and its authoritative decisions. This requisite is often neglected when
considering and reacting to recurring incidences of cultural conflict,
especially those emanating from the nation’s efforts to deal with its varied
population.
At times, incongruence
might originate from cultural beliefs and/or practices that are “imported” with
newcomers. Here, as just alluded to, communal
democracy faces an issue. The minimal congruence
a community expects does not have to extend beyond those efforts within the
union’s legitimate mandate (being true to its constitutional arrangement), so
that members within the commonwealth can ascribe to different cultural
loyalties at sub levels.
That is what usually
transpires, but there are cases when the variance does reach beyond legal
boundaries and, when it does, it reflects strongly held culturally based prerogatives
by those varying from this nation’s legal standards. But when the federated union functions in
accordance with its compact-al agreement, it should expect and be able to rely
on congruent support, if not political support. For those authoritative
decisions, the authorities are compelled to apply to not only conflictual
situations, but to everyday life occurrences.
This does not preclude any
individual or group from attempting to influence a more generalized cultural
position, but it does preclude activities that are antagonistic to the cultural
claim upon which the authoritative, legally based policy is situated. Should this level of cultural requirement be
supported with coercive methods?
Communal democracy
should, as earlier stated in this blog, avoid such reliance on coercion. Of course, activities that are promulgated by
incongruent – to US customs – cultural claims and are illegal, should be
subject to legal sanctions and, if necessary, coercive measures which are spelled
out by law.
Short of that, the state
is within its legitimate authority to use any persuasive methods at its disposal
to encourage a more congruent cultural belief in support of its policies even
if they contradict subcultural beliefs of affected immigrant or other culturally
divergent groups. This does not preclude
that those agents charged with sustaining American value positions from using
approaches noted for their understanding and sympathy for any resulting inconveniences.
Of course, members of
such other cultural groups have equal rights to persuade a policy more in line
with their cultural dispositions. At
issue is: how serious is their variance
from dominant culturally based policies or modes of behavior? And how reasonable, ala US standards, are those
offending cultural practices or beliefs?
Again, what is called for
is not mass antagonistic behavior in which the people act in unmediated and undeliberated
fashion. Instead, reasonable, and
deliberate discussion should be the first reaction and might solve the issue
before “things get out of hand.” Again,
as the saying goes, “one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
At times, Americans act with
more hysteria, with a lot of noise making, and less reflection. They might even vote in a way that lacks sufficient
consideration of the issues and is based on temporary emotional whims – is anti-woke-ism
an example? What communal democracy
counts on is deliberative citizenship in which form, usually, Americans are
known to act, at least in the long run.
Naturally, reflected
compromise is possible in this latter mode of political behavior. Representative democracy with its structures
helps promote a deliberative process.
The deliberative mode, in turn, has as one of its most challenging
chores establishing a community. A
communal democracy cannot be fashioned exclusively by the authorities, no
matter what its structure. It needs an infrastructure
which includes the associational networks described in the previous posting. In short, they, the associations, promote the
people-to-people element that community demands.
And with that, this blog
is set to address the next element of liberated federalism, the covenant of reason. That will be the topic of the next posting.
[1] See Forced Marriage, Wikipedia
(n.d.), accessed July 5, 2023,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage#:~:text=%22In%20conflict%20areas%2C%20women%20and,Democratic%20Republic%20of%20the%20Congo. In the US they are totally illegal. There might be arranged marriages in the US
as long as no coercion is used to secure the marriage.
[2] Philip Selznick, The
Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and
the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1992).
[3] Ibid., 521.
No comments:
Post a Comment