Towards the Ideal of Utopia

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.    

 III

            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.