A Government Based on Truth
“Both liberal-political democracy and 'totalitarianism' foreclose a politics of truth." - Slavoj Žižek
This is a provocative question. Are both democracy and totalitarianism either neutral to, or actually opposed to a politics based on truth? As a person who believes strongly in truth as a fundamental quality in life, at every level of society, it is vital to consider how we can build a politics based on truth.
We can look at other systems that at least claim to be dedicated to truth. Science, for example. The goal is to find the objective truth, based on the clear-minded examination. The goal of science is not to find majority opinion about truth, as in democracy, nor to impose truth by pure arbitrary will, as in autocracy, but to seek truth wherever it is found.
But science does kind of function like democracy, although not
electoral democracy, doesn't it? Theories are created by the consensus of the
scientific community. Anyone can write an article. Anyone can submit a theory.
Anyone can be a candidate. The ideas are subjected through a rigorous review. Bad theories are weeded out. Good ones are
kept in. And if the scientific community accepts those ideas, then they become
grounded in theory.
Good “thick,” liberal democracy works a little
like this. People with experience and knowledge are allowed to participate in
any important political process. All ideas are considered and subjected to
rigorous review by experts. They must then convince the broader populace. They,
in turn, moderate the arrogance and self-interest of the few.
Science, of course, is not based purely on
majority rule, but then neither are liberal constitutional democracies. There
are certain fundamental, constitutional values that cannot be changed without
extreme majorities in a constitutional democracy, just as a fundamental
scientific theory cannot be accepted without extreme majorities in the
scientific community.
Science is only as good as the scientists and
the processes they use. Thick, liberal, constitutional democracy is only as
good as its leaders, its values, and the skills and education of its
population. Controversial scientific ideas such as whether recent tropical
storms are caused by global warming, or the potential for development of fossil
fuel energy reserves, can be corrupted by outside funding and skewed research.
The same can be true for democracy, with selfish interests corrupting public
opinion.
But that is the limitation of democracy.
Ultimately, it attempts to impose the will of the people, even if the will of
the people is wrong. It protects certain fundamental rights and values from
pure majoritarian rule, by requiring 2/3rds votes, or even more rigorous
agreement from a super-majority of political-subdivisions, but ultimately if
the overwhelming majority of people want to do something, they can make it
happen. What if they are wrong?
Various governments have tried to overcome
this problem of the ignorance of the masses. Divine Right Monarchies assume
that the ruler will be right because God said so. It is hard to see how Henry
the VIIIth having sex with a concubine and giving birth to a baby with a penis
creates a person who makes better decisions than millions of citizens. We know
now that genetics does not make a small sub-set of people a whole lot smarter,
wiser, or less crazy then the rest of the population. Not a good alternative.
Aristocracy, Fascism and related governments still
have the truth-by-penis-action problem. It is not at all proven that a small
genetic group of nobles or ubermensch are all that better than anyone else. But
they at least modify it by making sure that theoretically better than average
genetics are also improved by concentrated exclusive education systems,
culture, wealth, and military power. Unless the Aristocracy is open to all
qualified people, though, it is hard to see why everyone should not have access
to excellent education systems, culture, and wealth, creating a broader pool of
experienced people to discern and seek truth in the political arena.
Vanguard Soviet-style Communism has the same
problems as democracy: the over-reliance on the majority, combined with all the
problems of Aristocracy: once the revolution of the proletariat takes place,
the small number of people put in the power cannot be taken out without another
revolution. The pool of knowledge and ideas becomes stagnated without new
blood.
Totalitarianism, of any form, is the worst. It
seeks to completely destroy any ideas or knowledge inputs outside of its
control. The cultivation of truth requires questioning common understanding.
Total control by the dominant power intentionally suffocates government based
on truth.
Technocracy or meritocracy is the next best
solution to democracy I have seen. By
putting power into the hands of a select few of highly educated and experienced
people, this technocracy can force through good policies, even if 85% of the
population disagrees. All people are
allowed the opportunity to join the technocracy, creating a universal pool of
talent. Objective tests, such as education requirements, standardized testing,
or a strong internal culture of professionalism, weeds out anyone but the most
qualified in their particular niche. This has the benefit of concentrating the
best of human knowledge on an important issue, especially one which can be
easily swayed by irrational emotions or self-interest if placed before a
majoritarian democratic process.
The problem with technocracy is that there is
no objective test for the highest levels of government, or for the most
fundamental values of society. There is no standard PhD program for running a
country. There must be different means for choosing the highest level leaders.
Liberal constitutional democracy still seems the best way to ensure the best
people are able to run, and able to be picked.
But even in broader democracies, portions of
government are ruled by technocracies. Of course there are the courts, the
technocratic experts in the law. But there is an ever greater hidden
technocracy in generally democratic government.
We call it bureaucracy. Highly experienced,
embedded political machinery that endures through multiple changes in
democratic governments. The experts in health science. The developers of
military technology. The government lawyers with 40 years in natural resources
law. The deep knowledge base that moderates the majoritarian tendency to freak
out when faced with short-term crises. The enduring institutional knowledge, passed
down from generation to generation, moderated by complex regulations, audits,
constant reviews, and processes for rationalizing actions.
Ironically, for all
of its bad rap, bureaucracy may be one of the greatest balancing forces in
broader democracies, ensuring a greater depth of government by good ideas and
knowledge. In other words, a government that is more accountable to truth.
Finally, a government dedicated to truth would
need to remove certain practices imbedded into modern government. Intelligence
agencies would need to tell their agents they cannot lie. That would radically change
current practices. Agencies could not deceive the public, even in relation to
matters of public safety. Treaty promises would need to be kept, or broken in
an honest manner. Internal agencies would need to be transparent and
accountable to investigations. Information would need to be shared freely.
Policies should be based on rigorous testing and review. And public information
would need to be clear and accurate.
Ultimately, whatever form the government
takes, the more a society develops education, in a deep and open sense, the
more potential there is for government by truth. So, too, if the values of
society, culture, family, and religion all place extreme importance on public
truth. All this creates the foundation of a government in which difficult
technical subjects are given to knowledgeable people, where matters of public
concern are given to the public, where information is freely shared, knowledge
is wide-spread, and ideas are considered, processed, debated, applied, and
revised in a free, open, and honest environment dedicated to the practical
application of truth.
