CHAPTER TWENTY
POLITICS
What is state?
It
is difficult to define it. Political scientists, however, agree that it refers
to a certain territory, population and a government which holds supreme power
over all internal affairs and thus controls the fate of the people within its
jurisdiction. They also believe that the state has a purpose which is the
"promotion of the common good or general welfare".
The state is a part of politics
which concerns the science of government especially the issue of sovereignty -
the right to rule, power structure, the constitution of political parties, their
behaviour in relation to morality and general methods of achieving the stated
goals. In fact, the role of the state has become so wide that it covers the
whole life of people through prescription.
Sovereignty
I shall, however, confine this
discussion to the issue of sovereignty in its relation to people and the state.
Whom does the sovereignty, the
supreme power, belong? The people or the state?
I do not know why such a silly
question has to be raised when the answer is so obvious: I have repeatedly
stated that life begins with the emergence of free will. Therefore, it is the
nature of every human to be free, and he can be free only when he retains all
the power that ensures his freedom. Therefore, sovereignty belongs to the people
because they cannot be free without it. Yet in practice, the opposite is true
because it is the state that holds and wields the supreme power. Therefore, the
question that I have just raised is not silly after all.
In theory, the state is a play of
golden words but in practice, it is the manifestation of the Gubernatorial Will
because it is primarily there to gratify the dominance urge of those who hold
power, the ideals of welfare and national aggrandizement are nothing but skilful
ploys for increasing the powers of the dominant. Thus the state and government
become synonymous because the entity of the state comes to depend upon the
conduct of its operators.
Sovereignty is the greatest
addiction that there is. Since power corrupts, the addiction emerges as the
abuse of power, because use of power, on the contrary, s constructive and
entails hard work which negates the pleasures of addiction. It is why the
justification of a government has been denied on ethical grounds. Maybe, it is
for this reason, Friedrich Engels stated: "With the disappearance of
classes the state too will disappear".
Yet people submit themselves to the
rule of power-hungry men. Shift of sovereignty from people, the lawful
claimants, to the members of the gubernatorial class, the usurpers, is a major
event. Why does this happen? It has been said that the rulers possess the
coercive power to subject people to the yoke of their authority This is an
over-simplified cause, and is only partially true. People accept commands of the
state for several reasons:
Causes of government
1. Togetherness is a part of human
nature. Therefore, individuals are inclined to become members of groups which
form society. The grouping needs cohesion which may basically be supplied by
customary practices but they prove inadequate for this purpose. This social
infirmity is exploited by the power-seeker who knows the art of converting other
people's weakness into his own strength. He takes over the society as the
government by force or trickery and his word becomes the law which drives people
like cattle.
2. Alternatively, a gubernator may
exploit people's inferiority complex which drains their self-confidence and they
find it difficult to stand on their own feet. Amongst the exploiters are gods,
gurus, messiahs and messengers who claim that God has sent them with the
scriptures that reveal the divine law which people must obey. These divine codes
are nothing but the representations of their own gubernatorial ambitions which
seek to deprive mankind of free will. This is what led to establishment of the
most autocratic theocracies under the influence of Christianity and Islam.
3. The spirit of age as determined
by the philosophy of the period has equally strengthened the hand of the state.
One has only to look at certain theories to reach this conclusion:
Organic theory
a. The organic theory describes the
state as an organism and the citizens as organs. It holds that every organ has a
particular function which is performed best in the service of the organism to
justify the purpose of its own existence. As an eye performs its natural
function by guiding the organism, an individual whose whole life is dominated by
the ideal of state, acts naturally and purposefully when he places himself at
its disposal completely. An individual has no value of his own, and can be
eliminated in the interest of the state. The marxist doctrine though economic in
nature, receives its deterministic social attitudes from the organic theory.
The supporters of this theory draw
their inspiration from the social insects which live in colonies and perform
different tasks according to the differences in their structures and functions.
For example, the queen lays eggs and the workers undertake other chores such as
tending the nest and procuring food. These enthusiasts cannot see any difference
between an insect colony and a human society. Like the members of the former,
the members of the latter are expected to act mechanically to suit the purpose
of the community. The individual members of the society are considered like the
cells or organs of an organism, and thus not allowed the human virtues such as
free will, conscience or individuality. Instead Of Suggesting a higher role for
man to enhance his magnitude, these theorists want him to live like ants, bees,
wasps and termites. The whole idea behind this type of theorization is to enable
the power-seekers to rule ordinary folks with impunity. It is amazing how these
theories have kept mankind under a similar sway as infatuation holds a demented
lover, or cocaine rocks its helpless addicts.
Theory of general will
b. The theory of general will as
propounded by Jean Jacques Rousseau, and further developed by Hegel and his
followers, explains this point. It argues that a moral rule is a moral rule only
when it is self-imposed, and therefore, the problem of political authority is
mainly of self-government. Thus the law is binding on us only when we have
ourselves made it. The tone of this theory clearly alludes towards a democratic
government which involves the participation of every adult. But this is not the
case. By interpreting the ethical aspect of man, the theory concludes that as
"the good" is the same for all rational men, the real selves of all
individuals will be identical, and thus the state can be presumed to have a
single will i.e. the general will. It means that the state has a will which is
over and above the wills of all the people it governs and possesses a unity of
self which is even higher than that of an organism. Thus the state is supreme in
relation to the people. Hegel and his followers raised it to an object of
deification by describing it as "the march of God upon earth".
This monistic viewpoint of Rousseau
and the Hegelians, which treated the state as the single supreme association,
was challenged by the pluralists who thought of the state as a complex of
voluntary associations, and thus sought to dilute its sovereignty and
over-reverence. Despite all these efforts the "monistic" theory, long
before the times of Rousseau and Hegel, has reigned supreme. All theocracies
laid down unquestionable laws demanding total submission to God, the real ruler
The Bible spoke of Yahwe as the jealous God and the Koran declared that the
kingdom belonged to Allah who does not tolerate the participation of a peer in
His government. All the rulers on this earth were despotic; the fascist
dictatorships of the twentieth century were also grounded in the monistic
philosophy of the state. Worse still, Marxism which advocated pluralism and
preached disintegration of the state when the classless society emerged,
perpetrated the worst type of a totalitarian state.
Traits of Power
The truth is that the state
represents the Gubernatorial Will, that is, the lust for power that permeates
the entire person of the dominant. While discussing the anatomy of power in
``Taxation and Liberty", I came to the conclusion that t is the tendency of
power to be absolute, self-augmenting and ostentatious. The state being the
symbol of power, naturally contains these three elements, namely absolutism,
self-augmentation and ostentation. It is obvious that an entity which has these
vices as its main features, is more concerned with its own preservation and
elevation than the welfare of its people. Its promises do not contain sincerity
but the magic of make-believe, which induces people to turn their backs on
reality for living happily as dreamers, and its deeds carry the aura of a mirage
whiCh' in politics, is the art of making things appear exactly opposite to what
they really are.
However, there is a remedy for
every ailment. Like other forces such as electricity' power can be harnessed to
impart it a humane and beneficient character. To achieve this end I propounded
the theory of Marginal Unity of People's Power in '`Taxation and Liberty".
I shall restate it here briefly to explain the political power-structure
However, before doing so, I ought to illustrate its background:
Gubernator
The state, as described earlier, is
the manifestation of the Gubernatorial Will What is a gubernator? It means a
"governor" but I used this word in an extended sense which denotes a
person who has a burning passion to govern and is eager to dominate through any
means such as trickery, sophistication or brute force Though he knows the
difference between right and wrong, in practice, right is what serves his
purpose and wrong is what frustrates him. He wants people to bow, bend and crawl
before him. He hates accountability and loves absolutism Hyprocirsy is the chief
trait and tool of the gubernator: he has the ability to run with the hare and
the hound simultaneously; he is capable of crying when he should be laughing and
vice versa. A gubernator has the same relationship with the masses as a spider
has with flies: through his telary skills, he weaves such invisible and alluring
webs that ordinary folks walk into them unknowingly, and sometimes eagerly.
Urge of dominance
The gubernator owes his dominant
nature to the urge of dominance which I have already described in this book.
This urge forces its possessor to assert his authority over the rest by
humiliating them and weakening their means of defence which guarantee dignity,
honour and freedom. The urge of dominance makes power the most enjoyable thing.
As a general rule, it prefers the sadistic delights to genuine pleasures of
life.
The elite
Population consists of 150lo elite
and 85% masses. Though the gubernator belongs to the elite group, everyone of
the elite is not a gubernator. Possibly, 5% of them qualify as the gubernators
for possessing the immense desire of attaining maximum power. The rest of the
elite are the people endowed with greater intelligence and capabilities and thus
occupying a higher position in the social hierarchy.
The masses
In direct contrast to the
gubernatorial class stand the masses; they are usually happy-go-lucky people who
enjoy life without delving into its complexities; they possess a fairly high
degree of intelligence which remains dormant for lack of use because they take
things at their stated values; thus their faculties operate at moblevel which is
not the individual but average level; this makes them docile, credulous and
manipulable. On the other hand, they are rigid when it comes to observing
customs and traditions. These
opposite attributes of docility and rigidity enable the gubernator to exploit
them through a carrot or stick, depending upon his convenience.
Gubernatorial will
The gubernator is mad about power.
In fact, power to him is what blood is to an organism, heat is to fire and
beauty is to a flower. This is the foundation of his personality and he cannot
exist without it. Thus, when I refer to the gubernatorial will, I mean the most
fervent desire of the gubernator to amass, assert and abuse power. Why abuse
power? The reason is simple; use of power implies rule with a sense of duty and
restraint which can be a headache because it brings no direct benefit to the
gubernator and becomes a source of displeasure whereas the whole idea of power
is to maximise personal pleasure which springs more from its abuse and less from
its use. It is the corruptive influence of power which is enjoyable owing to its
sadistic delights. It is not to say that pious and dutiful rulers are
non-existent; they do exist but they are rare. It is their rarity which exalts
them to the status of a god and thus excludes them from the list of gubernators.
Now, perhaps, it is clear what I mean when I say that "state is the
manifestation of the gubernatorial will".
Instinctive will
Opposed to the gubernatorial will
is the instinctive will. What is instinctive will?
A human baby is guided by its
instincts right from its birth. Its search for mother's nipples to avoid
starvation is an example of instinctive behaviour which is not all mechanical
but partially volitional, that is, free will or personal choice plays a part in
it. Thus, at least at the infant stage free will and instinctive behaviour are
synonymous because without the agreement of choice and action, survival will not
be possible.
In fact, instinctive behaviour does
not end with the passage of infancy or childhood; its certain aspects last from
cradle to cremation. Reactions of the muscles which consist of push and pull,
are the foundation of all our actions. This pattern is deterministic because
every push is automatically followed by a pull and vice versa.
This determinism is the foundation
of instinctive behaviour because if things were not determined the way they are,
they could not act automatically to provide the necessary guidance for survival.
This is exactly what the instinctive behaviour is. It does not contradict free
will because it helps survival which also appears to be the initial aim of free
will because we usually choose what prolongs our survival and pleases us.
Idealistic goals belong to the realm of ethics, and emerge at a much later stage
of an individual's life.
Liberty
Of courSe, instinctive behaviour is
subject to modification but all of it does not yield to the environmental
vicissitudes; some instincts stay in the background to influence fundamental
choices which also seem to be connected with the moral development of an
individual. As dominance is the instinctive behaviour for a gubernator, liberty
is the instinctive behaviour for an ordinary person (belonging to the masses).
What is liberty? Believe it or not,
liberty is the ultimate choice or goal of free will because nothing excels it in
nobility, dignity and magnitude; independence, that is, freedom to choose and
act, is its integral part. Again, the concept of liberty rests on sound morality
owing to the element of mutuality: it means that I can be free only if I respect
your right to freedom: if I harm your liberties, you will harm mine. Thus, a
truly free man is the person who is interested not only in his own freedom but
also the freedom of other people. Again, liberty is not an acquired
characteristic. It is an innate trait. Thus it is instinctive, and also the main
motivating force of behaviour. This is the reason that nobody willingly wants to
be a slave or a second-class citizen. The desire to smash the restrictive
barriers is so intense that liberty ranks as the instinctive will.
Clash of wills
Liberty is the antithesis of
dominance. Entire human civilization is an expression of the continual strife
between the gubernatorial will of the dominant and the instinctive will of the
masses. According to the Hegelian principle of history, the friction between the
opposites i.e. thesis and antithesis, leads to synthesis - the end product which
is something new or different from the contending factors. But this
interpretation does not apply to the struggle between dominance and liberty.
There is no amalgam or compromise between the two. Like the natural opposites,
e.g. negative and positive electric charges, they are antagonists: one has got
to be ascendant over the other. History shows that so far the gubernatorial will
has prevailed over the instinctive will. Why? Because the former is not only
callous, calculating and catapultic but also the master of hanky-panky,
hypocrisy and humbuggery. On the contrary, the latter is docile, dithering and
defensive and its virtues of love, loyalty and liveliness can be easily
manipulated to make a libertarian carry the cross of servitude. The relationship
between the two is the same as exists between a predator and prey. The predator
is ferocious and forceful enough to stand on his own but the defence of his
victims lies in the communal unity. A natural example of this fact is provided
by a tiger and a herd of buffaloes. The former will pounce upon a lonely buffalo
but when they join together and line up to express their charging zeal, the
beast leaves them alone. Unfortunately, the masses are always divided, either
through ideologies or varying secular interests, and thus easily fall victim to
the gubernatorial will which thrives on the usurpation of liberties.
Since every human baby is born with
a free will, and the desire to be free is the greatest of all choices,
sovereignty naturally belongs to the people because they cannot maintain freedom
without retaining the reins of power. However, it is usually the state which
holds sovereignty on the pretext of being people'S representative though, in
fact, it is an association of the power-seekers and thus a manifestation of the
gubernatorial will. This is the reason that a gubernator' and in this context,
the state, attracts the appellations of "hanky-panky, hypocrisy and
humbuggery".
Marginal utility of people's
power
This background discussion now
enables me to state the theory of marginal utility of people's power referred to
earlier in this chapter:
What is marginal utility? It is an
economic concept. In economics, utility means the power of a thing to satisfy a
want, irrespective of its usefulness or moral desirability It stresses that the
utility of additional units of a commodity diminishes with an increase in its
supply. If I am thirsty, the first glass of lemonade shall have the maximum
quenching power, the second glass shall be less satisfying and the third glass
may even lead to disutility, that is, it may make me ill.
The principle of marginal utility
of power in relation to people's sovereignty however, is exactly opposite in its
sense and application to the economic concept of marginal utility which holds
that an increase in the supply of a commodity leads to reduction in its
satisfying power, and, therefore, the last unit becomes the least satisfying. On
the contrary, the doctrine of marginal utility of people's power advocates that
in the field of politics, it is the last unit of people's power which is the
most satisfying because the last unit of people's power is the unit which
effectively operates against all gubernatorial tactics and usurpative attitudes
to protect civil liberties. Of course, it is not always easy to tell when this
point has been reached but it can be deduced from the quality of statutory laws,
judicial decisions powers of the state officers and their attitude towards
people. The last unit of people's power is like the last straw which decides
whether a camel shall remain operative or not.
It is the nature of the state to
amass power at the expense of people's liberties. Losing the last effective unit
of people's power to the state does not denote loss of people's reverence for
liberty but a condition of humiliation and disgrace. It cannot remain permanent
because the instinctive will of people, as a natural law gradually becomes
active like the fierce volcanic activity under the calm surface of the sea.
However, the loss of the last effective unit renders the remaining units of
people's power ineffective because its collapse precipitates the domino effect
causing rapid fall of the remaining units. It is like the pillar which carries
the entire weight of the building: the destiny of the edifice is tied with the
safety of the pillar. Thus the dimunition of every successive unit acts as
disutility to people because it correspondingly strengthens the state which will
use its inflated authority to deflate the dignity of the masses and cause them
discomfort. As one vote may decide the fate of a democracy or as a pound ceases
to be a pound by the loss of one penny, people's sovereignty may turn into
servitude by the loss of one unit of power. Since the loss of the last effective
unit of power indicates the start of the erosion of people's sovereignty, its
normative value must constitute the maximum satisfaction to people. It warns
them to defend their liberty, the most precious human asset. If they stand up
and fight for their rights, there is a good chance for them to stay free. The
law of nature is displayed by electricity which shows that a current flows from
the region of higher potential energy to the region of a loner potential energy.
When state representatives are kept under check, they occur people's wishes but
when the masses follow them blindly, they dictate them.
Of course, the theory of marginal
utility of people's power cannot be measured or calculated mathematically. Then,
is there a political theory which lends itself to this type of precision?
However, its value lies in practice and not in its imaginary flight. There are
two reasons for this assertion:
1. It stresses the inherent
friction between dominance and liberty to establish that freedom is the fruit of
constant vigilance and struggle against the gubernatorial passion of ruling at
all costs. This concept makes it abundantly clear that nothing is predetermined
politically: the poles of dominance and liberty are equal and opposite.
Whichever pole is ascendant, determines the magnitude of society in terms of
rights and repression. Strife between the two is eternal but the luck of the
contestants depends upon the quality of their struggle. When the state is
all-powerful, the masses are driven like cattle and expected to swallow all
sorts of nettle, but when power belongs to the people, the state or gubernator
becomes an agent of service, suavity and civilization.
2. This theory is grounded in moral
sense because a free society is possible only when people's relations with one
another are governed less by law and more by the dictates of morality, law
represents coercive force of the state but morality refers to free will which
means that people care about the rights of their fellowbeings and make
responsible choices.
Of course, governance of a society
is not a game; it is the discharge of the greatest responsibility, and,
therefore, the state must have sufficient powers to cope with all difficult
situations, yet these powers should be minimal because this is the nature of
power to be autocratic, self-augmenting and ostentatious. This is what makes
power corruptive, an absolute government is bound to be evil though it may cover
its ugliness with the golden mask of patriotism or welfare.
Democracy
Man cannot be forced to be free.
The freedom based on compulsion is a form of servility because it contains an
element of dominance. Therefore, concept of liberty is based on self-discipline
and moral integrity of the individual, thus making the working of social
relationships fairly easy. This situation is bound to reduce the coercive role
of law, and must confine it to the background. In a free society, the state
augments its authority by the respectability of its commands which appeal to
people's sense of fairness and urgency. The concept of marginal utility of
people's power assumes that people need the least coercion because they have
sufficient moral strength to conduct themselves properly. They live by their
moral traditions and not by the legal dictates. Thus the lesson of the theory of
marginal utility of power is quite clear: people must learn to govern themselves
through a system of equal power-sharing the equality must be in terms of rights,
and opportunity to prosper and rise higher according to ones individual
endowment This doctrine is called democracy but it is not all honey, and for
this reason has been arraigned by wisemen. Wealth distribution in the name of
economic equality is its real enemy because it turns it into a taxocracy which
enables the poor to rob the rich legally and turns the government into a bunch
of political thugs who act as Robin Hoods for tax-gathering through organised
bribery. Of course, democracy is founded on numerical strength but it must not
be allowed to become its sole basis. Democracy cannot count as the self-rule
unless it is grounded in moral force. Thus numerical strength of democracy must
be infused in moral sense which teaches an individual to respect the rights of
fellow-beings. A truly free Society reflects the moral strength of its members.
Does it mean that law withers away
in a truly free society? Not at all. The law provides objective standards of
judgement which are absolutely essential to weigh up the conduct of individuals
in relation to one another. There will always be civil disputes; people will
always sin through misunderstanding, misinterpretation or sheer malevolence. The
moral society is the one whose virtue is ascendant over vice, and not
non-existent. Therefore, we need law but its application must be minimal because
maximum law means the maximum application of force which is inimical to liberty.
It is only the maximization of moral force which can lead to the minimization of
law. Though in reality, morality and law are compatible in practice, they are
given polarity by the conflicting interest of dominance and liberty.
Since weakening of morality leads
to the stregthening of law which is practically a command of the powerful to the
powerless, and thus constitutes the real source of state-power, one is inclined
to enquire into the causes which enable the state to augment its power through
the mechanism of legality at the expense of morality.
There is really no mystery about
it. It is the abuse of the stated purpose of the state that enables it to become
autocratic. For example, there is no nobler purpose for the state than being a
welfare state but the concept of welfare is inflated to such an extent that it
begins to cover all aspects of life and the state intrusion Into the privacy of
an individual begins to cover all aspects of life and rank as the general rule
against the principle of liberty. This enormously enlarged commitment requires
extremely large sums of money and the state becomes a Mafia organization except
for its name. Thus taxation acts as the chief tool of inflating the state power.
This fact is not restricted to a welfare state but to all sorts of states
because they all thrive on their power to tax people at will.
I shall examine the nature of
taxation briefly in the next chapter as an extension of poetics. The readers
interested in the in-depth study of the subject ought to refer to my book:
"Taxation and Liberty".
| 
Previous
Chapter
