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

Why democracy doesn't mean you get your way - Part 2

If you do an online search of the word "democracy", you'll come across references to things like 'majority decision-making' or 'control by a majority'. Majority decision-making, and voting, are often assumed to be key features of a democracy.

However: neither voting, nor control by a majority, are necessary for democratic decision-making.

This may come as a shock, but there are ways for groups of people to make decisions that do not involve voting. Voting leaves very little room for nuance, for the exploration of alternatives, or for compromise between disparate perspectives.

Majority decision-making, for its part, can lead to a tyranny of the majority, the oppression of minority perspectives, the polarization of opinions, and, by definition, a portion of participants whose preferences are ignored.

So what's the alternative?

If you're part of a group that is empowered to make a decision on some issue (a board, community group, committee, etc), you…

Freedom to do stuff vs. freedom from stuff

As our children grow up we typically give them more freedom and discretion over the activities they will pursue, and increasing freedom of choice when it comes to who they will associate with and the type of education they want. It's commonly accepted that freedom from tyranny, oppression, and control is a hallmark of a democratic society; we should be free to lead and build a life of our choosing. Leading and guiding one another to a life of freedom is a great privilege that many communities are still fighting and striving towards. 
However, when our children are young, we're a bit more directive. When I wake up my daughters in the morning, whether they get dressed, eat breakfast, and get ready for school is not up for discussion or deliberation. At first, commanding them when to put on their shoes might seem to contravene their freedom of choice. Am I restraining their liberty? Obstructing their progress as free individuals? In directing them through these activities, it is…

Collaborative Governance in Action

Government: one participant amongst many

In a previous post we highlighted the need to go beyond voting for robust democratic participation. But if that's the case then the question becomes - how? Where do we create places for collaboration, discussion, and dialogue surrounding key issues facing our communities?

One possibility is to set up opportunities for collaborative governance. Now remember, governance is distinct from government; governance refers to decision-making practices and structures, and alsothe broader systems in which decisions about our communities are made. A government is a specific entity endowed with decision-making authority over something.

Collaborative governance simply refers to decision-making where multiple different organizations are involved. In these forums, governments are one of the participants amongst many, as opposed to being the sole arbiter over final decisions. Decision-making takes place between both state and non-state entities, and authori…