Man And The State

Dr. Sarfaraz K Niazi (e-mail: niazi@niazi.com)

Civilization degrades the many to exalt the few. AMOS BRONSON ALCOTT, Table-Talk: Pursuits.

Is society made for man or is man made for society? Is the state a divine creation which man must not question, or is it a result of a "social contract" among men and subject to change when it no longer serves men? How do the rulers get their authority? Is revolution justifiable? Is totalitarianism or democracy correct?

Man prefers to live with his fellow beings and there is no more cruel punishment than to isolate him from other men for a long time. This clansmanship began with man's insecurity against his environment. Over about 200,000 years of transformation from merely an animal species to Homo erectus, man found that two can defend against calamities better than one can; thus began the realization of community. The chemical theory suggests that living closer causes certain body chemicals to be exchanged through skin or breath. These chemical, pheromones, act like opium, forcing us to crave for more leading to dependence bonding. Later, the genetic modifications needed for man's survival infused the communal nature into his being and to assure that man does not work against the cause which would help him survive, a reward and punishment system was developed in our brain to assure compliance with survival attitudes.

Man does not love all men; nor does he hate all; he just wants to be around them. This communal attitude of man evolved into social principles, laws, societies, nations and countries. The purpose of all of these state affairs was to assure better survival against the enemies, emotional or corporeal.

The first social rules were not consciously determined or set down, they were possibly accepted as right and necessary without much of any thought on the matter. Out of these first rules grew social requirements and customs and procedures. These then became tribal laws or rules of the social group. Those procedures which were found to preserve the group and protect it against enemies without and within were held to tenaciously, while those which did not serve this purpose were abandoned. The way of living thus developed was handed on from older generations to the younger through the experience or through ceremonies. The unwritten customs and laws held the group together solidly, and anyone who dared to disobey even in the least was severely punished. Often death was the penalty for failure to follow the tradition.

The time when these laws and customs were written down marks the beginning of society and the state. Many centuries after the beginning of written codes of society, philosophers argued whether social organization was a natural result of man's living together, or does it have any divine origin? Is it a mere convenience which is to be changed and revised as times change, or does it have a permanent status such that man changes it at his peril? Where is the power of state, is it in the people or in the rulers who receive it from God? What is the best form of the state, and how shall man attain this? These questions have lead men to wars, revolutions and untold social calamities, a saga that continues even today.

The ancients believed that their gods were the ultimate rulers of the state, and that their fellows who held power over them had received their authority directly from gods. They accepted the laws without questioning them. The best example of this type of the laws of the state are the Ten Commandments given to Moses on tablets of stone from their god, Jehovah. Punishment for breaking these laws was not man-given, but was inflicted by Jehovah. All early people held these same beliefs, substituting the name of their god for the Jehovah of the Hebrews. They saw the state as a divine creation and the laws as divine commands which man broke at his peril since divine punishment was sure and just. The god was made angry and wreaked vengeance upon those who dared to disregard his will.

Man is man because he lives in society. How much freedom must he be allowed to exercise is a question which creates bipolar views. One the one hand are those who follow more or less completely the lead of men from Plato to Nietzsche and hold that inequality is the natural state of man. Each member of the state must take his proper place in the social structure. It is perfectly right and natural that some should rule and others be ruled and that the ruled should not question the acts of the rulers. Democracy, socialism and all other such systems of human equality and freedom were spurned and linked to anarchy. Plato would have preferred the philosopher-king with the rest taking their place in a tightly organized system. Hegel argues that some groups or individuals are superior by nature and therefore should rule others

One the other end of the bipolar views regarding state are the democratic traditions which grew out of the Renaissance and came to fruition in the work of men like Locke and Rousseau. It holds that all men by nature are free and equal. This position is basic to the French Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. "We, the people,...." is synonymous with democracy assuring "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This position lead to the influential doctrine of laissez faire, a doctrine which characterized the early years of development of the United States. It limited the authority of the state and magnified the freedom of the individual to work and hold the rewards of his work.

Democracy is not a singular system; it is a system that best placates its populace at any given time. Any thing other than that will be disruptive and cause frustration and deterioration of communal achievements. The freedom afforded in any democratic system to individuals is a pivotal point in the success of individuals and the society. Unfortunately, complete freedom leads to a crass individualism in which the powerful oppress the weak. Complete regulation leads to the same end, but the oppressors are those who happen to gain control of the government. To strike a balance of freedom where both the individual and the group will prosper is the target of new social experiments. The World Order described recently is more likely a camouflaged totalitarian system.

Given the diversity of economic, social and religious realities of the societies around the world, it is unlikely that a common system of government will be successful for all. But then there doesn't have to be a single ideal system. As long as the system allows men to live happily and prosper, they would accept the system which guarantees it. And that is the right form of government of the state. Idealism in democracy is dangerous because there is no perfect democracy and there need not be one. Each society and culture would develop into different principles of governing the state they would call democracy, if it is based on equal participation. Ultimately, this system will overrule all other systems because it fulfills the requirements of a natural genetic paradigm for survival.

The aborigines of Australia live a highly structured system, it is their democracy; the feudal lords of the Asia live through a different system, it is their democracy. What happens is that the level of representation considered essential by the populace changes with time, with education, with exposure to other systems and also genetically over the period of time. It is at a given time the level of representation needed to form a harmonious system that determines the norms of a democratic society. Nothing can be more damning than to emulate other systems and "ideal" democracy. Ideal systems can only emerge through cultural and social evolution.

Today's world is uniquely divided into the categories of developed or developing, construing that there is actually a target to reach in civic progress. Nothing is farther from truth. Satisfaction with a given system of civic order is the only important criterion. For example, despite significant technologic progress and improvement in the quality of life, good part of the world is humming with protests against political ideologies; there is unrest, ethnic riots, personal insecurity and a general feeling of discomfort and frustration. Many seem to know what is the "exact" solution to the "problems." Well, one can change the authority of government, give more rights to those haven't had them, give more money to the poor, provide better healthcare, improve education standards and so on and so on. All of these put together can be summarized as the quality of life. And that is what the people want