Government By Truth

                           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.