I
The aim of this essay it to present the core ideas of what the author believes
should be regarded as the goal that mankind should aspire to in terms of
political institutions. I shall begin by defying the common concept that
something that can be seen as a utopia is not worth pursuing because it is too
perfect and therefore too unrealistic. After I do this, I will give an outlook
of my concept of utopian politics by naming four fundamental political choices that
will create a reasonably palpable political model.
Most people tend to dismiss what we can call utopia for it is commonly accepted
that utopian ideals are unachievable and thus, a waste of time. A pragmatic
approach would suggest that the best course of action is to ignore the utopian
ideals and strive towards more pragmatic, more easily achievable political
configurations.
In this essay, however, I feel compelled to do precisely the opposite of what
the more pragmatic will probably suggest. Here I shall dare to dream about a
society that is, indeed, in my eyes close to ideal. I do this because, unlike
many, I do not see utopia as something beyond our reach. I see it as an ideal
that should indeed guide us towards what we should and can become as a species.
Any type of society, one could argue, can be seen as the combination of its
people and its institutions. This is well exemplified in the famous historical
acronym S.P.Q.R. that stood for “the people and the senate of Rome .” Henceforth, any
ideal of utopia should, in theory, cover both the composition and culture of a
certain people as well as its institutions. I should say that, in this
particular paper, I will concern myself with the latter.
II
I shall begin with the issue of political economy. Obviously, this is a central
subject in political philosophy and indeed entire libraries have been written
about it. Here, I will but dedicate a handful of paragraphs which however
should be enough to state my point of view on the matter, leaving its
intricacies to future efforts. It cannot go unsaid that this is essentially a
highly controversial theme and it is close to impossible to state which is the
ideal economic model. I will opt for the highest level of simplicity and
identify the two fundamental poles of philosophical thought on the matter. As
it is widely acknowledged, these are capitalism and socialism.
I believe that the “ideal” economic model lies precisely in the “middle of the
road,” or somewhere near. That is, the answer is neither pure capitalism nor
pure socialism, but instead a compromise between the two. This has been called
in Britain “the
third way” and it has been applied with great success in many different areas
all over northern Europe . Practical
application of this model has shown that it can provide both efficiency and
fairness at the same time, unlike pure versions of capitalism and socialism.
Capitalism can provide economic efficiency, but it severely lacks in fundamental
social justice. Socialism, on the other hand, provides a decent amount of
fairness and economic equality, but this is achieved at the cost of economic
efficiency which ends up harming the population to a considerable extent. The
“third way,” on the other hand, is like capitalism and socialism’s hybrid
child, adopting the best qualities of each and discarding their deficiencies.
It can be argued, then, that “the third way” is in fact a product of economic
evolution, being a step ahead of the pure models of the past. Obviously,
extremists from the right or left will be all too willing to dispute this
conclusion which, in my opinion, is clear and obvious. In this essay,
however, it is not my intention to try to dispute their possible lines of
criticism.
Next, I would like to examine the social aspect of political
institutions. Again, we find two fundamental poles that serve as the two
extremities of a continuum. On the left side we can find extreme social
liberals and on the right side we can find the conservative extremists.
An ideal example of this can be found in the North American traditional
dichotomy between Democrats and Republicans, with the first party embracing
liberal ideals and the second party rejecting them in favor of more
“conservative” notions. To use only a few examples, in the following
aspects Democrats adopt liberal views while Republicans tend to take the
opposite stance: gay marriage, homosexuality, feminist notions, abortion,
religious tolerance, racism, and anti-Semitism. I tend to prefer the liberal
point of view on these matters and reject the conservative point of view,
although I think that to a considerable extent being a liberal or a
conservative is a matter of personal preference and should be respected.
I will however state that there is an exception to the rule of acceptance of
other people’s personal views. That is I think that all dialogue should be open
to everyone, and everyone should enjoy equal rights before the law and in civil
society. In other words, it is my view that discrimination should be exiled
from the society and politics of any system or institution that aspires to be a
utopia, or rather, that aspires to be as perfect as possible.
Thirdly, it is necessary to tackle the topic of the forms of
government, a topic that has been at the core of political thought since the
dawn of political philosophy.
In this essay I prefer to overlook the classical division of forms of
government as it was devised by the classics: Monarchy (ruling by one man);
Aristocracy (ruling by a few); and Democracy (ruling by the people).
In line with a more modern philosophical tradition, I will only adopt the
concept of Democracy and compare it to a “modern” concept such as a
dictatorship.
Democracy is ruling by the people, whereas a dictatorship is the ruling by one
single leader, or a group of select leaders, on behalf of the people. There are
evidently a number of sub-types of democracies and dictatorships but instead of
going into detail, I prefer to focus on the essential divide between
democracies and dictatorships.
I believe that the most fundamental difference between democratic and
dictatorial forms of government lie in one single and most important concept:
liberty. And whereas democracies tend to guarantee this important good to their
citizens, dictators are adept at denying their subjects freedom. For this
reason alone, democracy must be considered a highly desirable element for any
sort of political institution.
Finally, I would like to focus on a different sort of
dichotomy that has, thus far, been relatively neglected in political
philosophy. It consists in the contrast between national forms of government and
supra-national institutions, or, in other words, between nationalism and
universalism. Herein lays the core of my notion of utopia. In fact, one of the
main goals of this essay is to introduce the embryonic concept of a political
utopia devoid of national content; that is, one that embraces the idea of
humankind in place of that of a specific nation.
Why should the political nucleus be, at all times, the nation? Why can’t we
devise political institutions that are all inclusive, and that are designed to
serve the whole of mankind instead of only a fraction of it? I would argue that
an all-inclusive republic is better than one that is limited to a specific set
of people. I dare suggest, then, that a post-nationalistic conception of
politics should be the underlying idea for a utopian set of political
institutions. In other words, if we were to devise a system of government that
is as perfect as a system of government can be, such a political framework
should include all humans and not just a particular type of humans, if not in
practice, at least in theory. It should go beyond the idea of the nation-state,
thus overcoming its many shortcomings that more often than not follow from its
short-sightedness.
The
fundamental problem with nationalism lies in its tendency to create an
in-group/out-group dynamic. The consequences of this fundamental mistake can
range from inconsequential to catastrophic. In the twentieth century alone,
unfortunately, we have seen all too well what might happen in the worst
case-scenarios. In Nazi Germany the dynamic was Arians and Jews; in Yugoslavia
it was Serbs and Croats and Muslims, in Rwanda it was Hutus and Tutsis and in
the world wars it was Germans, Britons, French, North-Americans, Japanese,
Russians, Austrians and son-on. The nationalistic way of understanding the
world in the twentieth century has led to strife and massacres, and some groups
have repeatedly slaughtered others. All of this has been done in the name of
the nation or the ethnicity. At the dawn of the twentieth-first century we
should look back and wonder if we want history to repeat itself in this new
century.
Assuming
that the answer is no, it is imperative that we find an alternative to
nationalism. Fortunately, the answer is simple and is already upon us. The
question is just “are we willing to take this opportunity and save us from
ourselves?” The answer is in international organizations and supra-national
forms of governance such as the United Nations, the African Union or the
European Union. These organizations and others that will be born in the future
can help us to overcome the differences imposed on humankind by nationalities
and hopefully, lead the way into a future less nationalistic and much more
humane.
The concept of an ideal set of political institutions advanced in this essay is
then based on four fundamental concepts: a compromise between socialism
and capitalism, social liberalism, democracy and universalism. It is my belief
that a combination of those guiding g principles would go a long way towards
producing a set of institutions that could best serve our kind. These
principles, together, would drive us towards a utopia; that is, a society as
good as any society can be.
This essay alone, as any theoretical work, doesn’t have the power to implement
the ideas that it fosters. However, I do believe that it should serve as a tool
to implement such ideas in the minds of the people of our kind, who can, then, by their actions, turn these ideas
into actions. That is the way toward utopia as I see it.
To summarize, in this essay I sought to defend the notion that utopia should be
something that we are willing to pursue as the maximum possible achievement as
a society. We should not turn from utopia because it is too perfect;
rather, we should stride toward it for that reason. I then tried to identify
the main aspects that configure any set of political institutions, reaching the
conclusion that they can be understood in terms of fundamental
dichotomies. I then indicated which side, if any, of these dichotomies
should be pursued in order to create the best set of political
institutions. Out of the ideas outlined in the course of this paper, that
which is perhaps most relevant for its unorthodox nature is the idea that a
near-perfect form of government would have to be constructed from a
universalistic rather than a nationalistic view of politics and mankind.
