VOTE FOR THE BANDITRY OPTION?

Boy, there has been a lot of ink used to describe why we have government, how governments come about, and what governments can be expected to accomplish. In this writing, there is much disagreement; among political thinkers there are many approaches to this subject matter. That is, there is a variance in how these questions are perceived and answered – in how they see the relevant history of governance. One thing these writers seem to agree on, though, is how they, at least in part, answer the question: why government? Governance is needed, they contend, in order to manage and, if needed, settle disputes. This does not refer to all disputes, but those that cannot be settled through agreements due to human emotional bonds or through shared interests. Samuel P. Huntington¹ claims that government is not needed when social collectives are small with a common set of interests, a shared sense of values, and a relatively high level of affection between the members. But as societies grow, taking in more diverse interests, and relying on good humor and a common past does not seem to work too effectively in promoting solutions to the conflicts among interests that will inevitably materialize. At some point, a designated, non-interested party, with authority, is needed to render those decisions that will relieve or even settle such disputes. That function seems to be the one agreed upon reason for government. Even conservatives agree with that reasoning.

By conservatives, I am referring to those citizens who would agree with the general proposition that former President Ronald Reagan announced: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem.” A political thinker who seems to provide theoretical backing for this view is the late Mancur Olson. He argued that as societies grow, the social bonds grow weaker, interests diversify, and people have the logical motivation to not participate in the solutions of societal problems. They instead are motivated to become “free riders” – that is, they logically decide to enjoy the fruits of collective action, but do not put in time, effort, or money to support such action. Instead, in order to get them to put some skin in any group or collective effort(s), people need particular incentives to entice them to participate in the collective action. Government is the product of those among us who see the need for government – this dispute settling function – and exploit this reality through chicanery to place themselves in positions of power in order to steal – commit banditry – from the community they govern. Hence, the government they head becomes “the problem” as it sucks the resources from the productive members of society to provide themselves with lavish lifestyles. Not only do they steal, but they are also highly ineffective in solving the problems they supposedly set out to fix. Olson distinguishes between two types of bandits: “roving bandits” – a basis for anarchy – and stationary bandits who provide protection against roving bandits. The stationary variety, in their process of establishing government, also provide the beginnings of civilization which can eventually evolve into democracy that puts a lid on the excesses of banditry by aligning the workings of government more closely with the interests of the people. But then again, there is the problem of “free ridership” and one can readily see the best solution is for government to do as little as possible.

Of course, this line of reasoning precludes a more active view of governance. Active governance is one that sees government as that agency that can coordinate and head collective actions to strive to achieve collective ambitions. These ambitions are difficult to satisfy without government when the potential of satisfying the ambitions neither provides for private profit nor profit which can be derived by particular parties, be they individuals or businesses. Such ambitions can reflect moral considerations or they can be a generally shared desire for some accomplishment that people feel reflects well on them. The first type of ambition would be exemplified by the War on Poverty during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration in the 1960s. The second type of effort would be exemplified by the space program that was started during the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration and continues today, albeit on a much reduced level. Of course, the crowning event of the space program was the US's landing a man on the moon in 1969. Most Americans take pride in that accomplishment. The role of government in either of these types of efforts, in order to be successful, is indispensable for it is only government that can summon the resources such efforts demand. But that view of governance would surely not see it as a form of banditry.

The philosophic foundations for more active governance come from varied sources; they can be deduced from thinkers from Plato and Aristotle to Karl Marx. The degree of governance with which these thinkers would feel comfortable runs the gamut from a role in which government is an encourager and a focal point expressing collective ambitions to a role as determinant agent mandating, even using coercion, to establish some ideal or “perfect” society. As a guiding mental construct, federalism lies closer to the former sort of approach – one of encourager or focal point. For federalists, perfection, if that word can be used here, lies not in some final societal condition or program or in an arrangement among citizens, but in the process of promoting the participation Olson seems to think can be derived only from particular or specific incentives that “buy” that participation. Its approach comes in direct opposition to the sentiment espoused by Olson and other critics of government action.

How do you elicit that type of participation characterizing an active government in a diverse society when there is no unifying ethnicity, religion, or occupational base? There is no guarantee, but I feel federalism in its component parts addresses some of the concerns.

For one, federalism respects the smaller units that compose a societal makeup. It is more in tune with a political environment that is apt to have more shared interests. In the US, that would be the respect and constitutional powers that are retained by the states. In addition, the evolve-ment of “home rule” within states allows localities a great deal of leeway in how they run their affairs. And while states don't have state religions anymore – a prospect some states have mentioned reviving – there are efforts in all states to promote a sense of loyalty or fidelity to that state's common history and shared values. There are attempts to celebrate the history of that state with stories of sacrifice and other folklore. While these efforts at times run contrary to agreed upon national values – often in regard to race issues – overall, a healthy respect for local modes of living and their related values has been an honored aspect of American life.

Federalism also emphasizes the foundational arrangements that originally created the society and government. They are the product of an active choice by a population to go through the process of forming an agreement by which that people will be governed. By formulating and agreeing to the provisions of a constitution, the people of a state are federated to each other by binding themselves to a compact – a solemn agreement by which they promise to live by the agreement no matter what any other party does or does not do.

Is all this idealistic in light of Olson's concerns? Perhaps, but what happens when there is no such idealism? We might create the institutional requisites for governance, but the resulting arrangement is one totally based on transactional relations, particularly in our politics. When that happens, we have to face overwhelming problems: a population not willing or able to make the sacrifices a people might and probably will be called upon to make for the common good and a population primed for nihilism. So, as I see it, those are our choices. I choose that we not only take up the federalist option – leaving all that banditry talk behind – but also that we promote it to students in our public schools.

1Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.