Skip to main content

State government: not necessary for democracy

Got your attention?


This statement may seem counter-intuitive, but it may very well be true. Democracy can mean a whole lot of things, but it does not necessarily require or imply state government. A state can be thought of as a political entity, typically with perceived sovereignty over some geographic territory, a single unified government, and a monopoly on the legal deployment of an army or other enforcement agency. If we understand democracy as structures and processes for people to make decisions about their communities, then are any of the above items necessary?

You might think the answer is yes - that at the least we need some kind of unified government. But what if we define government more holistically as systems and structures that govern some kind of organized community? Is this possible without the additional features of a state: geographic sovereignty, a single unitary government, and a monopoly on organized force?

I would suggest that yes, it might be possible. Consider federal systems, which separate powers and jurisdiction between multiple orders of government. Or the countless civic agencies that administer different functions of government under completely different structures - from government departments, to crown agencies, to public/private partnerships. Not to mention civic associations, nonprofit groups, cooperatives, NGOs, and charitable organizations. These organizations typically have mandates that are related to services, programs or activities in the communities where they operate. They are governed by volunteer boards of directors, and are autonomous entities. Taken together, these multiple entities collectively govern our communities, through a network of systems and structures (rather than reporting to a central authority).

Historically, city-states, operating independently but with a common culture and shared identity, existed in regions throughout the globe. Italy, Greece, Southeast Asia, all experienced autonomous city-states that cooperated on a regional basis. Many of these continued after the advent of the nation-state. Here in British Columbia, Canada, the Coast Salish peoples co-existed in distinct nations for thousands of years without ceding decision-making power to any central authority.

In all of these cases, religious zeal and/or colonial imperialism saw formerly independent political jurisdictions annexed, conquered, or destroyed. In fact, the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, largely credited for the creation of the nation-state, was an effort to quell religious disputes through an agreement to empower distinct geo-political 'nations' with sovereignty over matters of religion.

This historical context raises a central feature of the modern nation-state; a feature that might make the case for a central governmental authority. It might be argued that all these varied groups and autonomous entities require a centralized authority, with ultimate jurisdiction over a clearly defined geographic territory. An authority which provides a commonly agreed upon legal framework to maintain peace, order, and cooperation, and a monopoly on the legal use of force.

However, many nations set up a judicial system that is independent from the central political authority. Furthermore, our common understanding of principles such as human rights, political equality, and the rule of law is vastly improved from 1648. Are we at the point when it might be possible to have a network of organizations, agencies, and autonomous political entities adhere to commonly held laws, and the authority of an independent judiciary, without a central political authority? Is a central state government, with geographic sovereignty, necessary for community cooperation and democracy in the modern era?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem with Voting

Voting at the polls is a cornerstone of democracy today. When we think about, and understand, democratic participation, we imagine casting some kind of vote for some kind of person or issue in some kind of election.

Unfortunately, a focus on voting narrows the possibilities for democratic participation, which is really all about shared decision-making. Don't get me wrong, voting is important. It took us about 2500 years to set up voting as an actual mechanism to make decisions, and even now it's certainly not a widespread practice. The right to vote is a contested aspiration in many corners of the world, and we should support the right of each and every person to an equal voice in community decision making.

However, an exclusive focus on voting carries a significant risk. The concept of democracy is an aspiration; an aspiration to share decision-making, and to enable each other, as equals, to participate in decision-making. Decision-making cannot always be achieved with a sin…

Running for office: no experience necessary

There are moments when I hear people question the qualifications and experience of those who are running for, or hold, positions in office. Shouldn't there be some minimum, established, standard or criteria for holding a public position of power? Some minimum level of education?

The short answer is no. If we start looking to impose minimum standards or benchmarks other than: 1) residency, 2) adulthood* we've missed the whole point of democracy, and a critical part of what democracy means. A fundamental democratic principle is equality of voice, or equality of voting. Every person has decision-making power. This principle is based on the concept that not a single one of us is more qualified, or has any right, to impose decision-making or power over others, any more than they also have a right to impose decision-making or power over us.

By contrast, in other spheres of life, we want trained experts to hold some degree of decision-making power. For example, Doctors should probabl…

Why public hearings are terrible

It's a typical public hearing, and over a dozen speakers have arrived to speak for or against the proposed development. When called, each speaker heads up to the microphone and passionately relays their personal perspective on why the new development should, or should not, be permitted.

At the end of the hearing none of the speakers has changed their mind, and very few have learned anything new. Council makes their decision. Those who are aligned with the vote rejoice, while those opposed to the decision lament and decry the process as well as the decision.

A democratic exercise? Certainly doesn't feel like one. Public hearings are notorious for leaving council members exhausted, members of the public frustrated, and decisions that seldom seem connected to the proceedings themselves. This format and mechanism are partially products of our focus on democracy as accountability and equality of voice. At a public hearing, any resident can register to speak, and views are expressed…