Government and History

The Lessons of History, Chapter X

By:  Will & Ariel Durant

Overview

 “… the first condition of freedom is its limitation; make it absolute and it dies in chaos.”  Unless individual freedom is limited and channeled into socially beneficial pursuits by law, tradition and morals, it leads to anarchy and chaos.  Dictators arise out of the chaos, promising relief from anarchy, and establish tyranny. 

The Durants evaluated different types of governmental structures throughout history, including monarchy, oligarchy and democracy, with attention to how they dealt with freedom and its limitation.  They used Greece, Rome and America as examples, comparing and contrasting what happened then and what it suggests about what could happen now. 

 

 

Highlights

Elite Rule vs Majority Rule

Monarchy & Oligarchy

The most common and longest lasting forms of government have been elite rule including monarchy (king, czar, emperor,  dictator) and oligarchy (rule of a few).  By comparison, democracies have been rare “hectic interludes.” 

But “… monarchy has had a middling record … The complexity of contemporary states seems to break down any single mind that tries to master it.”  Consequently, monarchies frequently transition into oligarchies ruled by a minority chosen “… by birth, as in aristocracies, or by a religious organization, as in theocracies, or by wealth, as in democracies.”  (And today we might add a political oligarchy made up of politicians and their crony-capitalist and special-interest supporters.)

But both Monarchy and Oligarchy promote the elite and do little for the people.  They encouraged neither freedom nor equality, and tend to oppress the people as a whole.  Consequently, although common, they are not desirable for those who are not part of the ruling class.

Majority Rule (Democracy)

Looking at history, majority rule (democracy) appears to be rare and unnatural, and it can have both positive and negative effects.  Unbridled majority rule frequently leads to abuse of minorities because in a pure democracy the majority can do anything they want.  And frequently what they want is to force someone else to take care of them, either as literal slaves or tax slaves.  The eventual result is hatred, class envy and greed that lead to chaos.  Out of chaos rise demigods who lure the people into tyranny with promises of security and restoration of national pride and abundance. 

But, if race or class warfare divide people into competing camps, changing the political dialogue from reasoned debate to hate, democratic governments will be replaced with the rule of the sword. 

Majority rule is also very difficult to implement on a large scale because it is much easier to organize and unite a minority (special interest group) than a majority around a specific course of action. 

“Democracy is the most difficult of all forms of government, …”  It requires widespread intelligence and “… we forgot to make ourselves intelligent when we made ourselves sovereign.”  Although basic education has become available to more people, general intelligence has not necessarily followed, particularly as the classical liberal curriculum that taught students to think has been replaced by technical training focused on material success.  Consequently, most populations abound in ignorance of the important principles of government that form the basis of freedom and prosperity. 

“A cynic remarked that ‘you mustn’t enthrone ignorance just because there is so much of it.’”  But the ignorant are easily manipulated by the forces that mold public opinion.  Lincoln said “you can’t fool all the people all the time”, but the Durants conclude, “… you can fool enough of them to rule a large country.”

Although democracy has many limitations, republicanism (which we typically call democracy), with its representative constitutional governments, has “… done less harm, and more good, than any other form of government.” 

Fearing the constant cycle of natural inequality and dictatorial efforts at forced equality, the Durant’s conclude, “If our economy of freedom fails to distribute wealth as ably as it has created it, the road to dictatorship will be open to any man who can persuasively promise security to all; and a martial government, under whatever charming phrases, will engulf the democratic world.”

Athenian Democracy

Strictly defined, democracy has existed only in modern times.  Only a small portion of the population had the right to vote in ancient “democracies” such as Greece and they were divided into factions: the landed aristocracy, small landowners, and businessmen.  It was the majority of a minority who actually ruled.  Plato condemned “… the triumphant democracy of Athens as a chaos of class violence, cultural decadence, and moral degeneration.… ‘And this is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs dictatorship … dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty (meaning complete freedom from restraint).’” 

Athens became wealthy from commerce as industrialists, merchants, and bankers rose to the top of the power structure.  “The change produced a feverish struggle for money, … an appetite for more and more. … (The new rich) built gaudy mansions, bedecked their women with costly robes and jewelry,… The gap between rich and poor widened; …”  Athens was divided into two warring cities, one poor and the other rich.  “The poor schemed to despoil the rich by legislation, taxation, and revolution; the rich organized themselves for protection against the poor.”

In Athens, the poor gained control of the Assembly and took the wealth of the rich through legislation, redistributing it through government enterprises and subsidies.  Sometimes the expropriation of wealth took more direct forms including massacring creditors and killing the rich to confiscate their property.

Roman Political Evolution

Rome started as an oligarchy (rule of a few rich land owners) that conquered the Mediterranean world.  The wealth from conquest and commerce raised the upper middle class to opulence.  Slaves replaced native farmers who had to move to the cities where they received monthly doles of grain starting in 123 BC to keep them docile.

The spoils of war produced a proliferation of millionaires.  Mobile money replaced land as the source of political power.  The people were given the vote and competing factions (special interest groups) competed in the wholesale purchase of candidates and votes.  When money failed to get the necessary results, “… citizens who voted the wrong way were in some instances beaten close to death and their houses were set on fire.  Antiquity had never known so rich, so powerful, and so corrupt a government.” 

The aristocrats supported Pompey while the commoners threw their support behind Caesar.  Caesar won but was murdered by the aristocrats.  Nevertheless his grandnephew and stepson Augustus rose to power, establishing a monarchy (Caesar absolute rule), fulfilling Plato’s prediction that democracy will be replaced by dictatorship.

United States

American democracy had a wider voting base than any previous nation.  It benefited from its British heritage including “Anglo-Saxon law, which, from the Magna Carta onward, had defended the citizens against the state; and Protestantism, which had opened the way to religious and mental liberty.”

As a result of this heritage, “A government that governed least was admirably suited to liberate those individualistic energies that transformed America from a wilderness to a material utopia,…”  giving America the most basic and universal democracy the world had ever known. 

But the Durants observed that things had started changing in America, even in 1968 when they wrote that economic freedom was becoming more and more difficult for the middle class.  The most capable and those most skilled in manipulating the government to their own advantage become richer and more powerful every year.

The problems are reported to have come about through the free market.  “Every advance in the complexity of the economy puts an added premium upon superior ability, and intensifies the concentration of wealth, responsibility, and political power, …” making those with less ability or luck resentful, and pushing the country toward a turning point.  In the end, “If race or class war divides us into hostile camps, changing political argument into blind hate, one side or the other may overturn (rule of law) … with the rule of the sword.” 

Is Revolution Justified

“Does history justify revolutions?”  Although revolution seems to have been needed to overturn corrupt systems, there are many examples of how similarly corrupt systems have been overturned peacefully through a free economy.  The French revolution and economic progress in England both overturned systems of hereditary privilege, one violently, the other peacefully.  Most often revolutions are about redistribution of wealth but “… violent revolutions do not so much redistribute wealth as destroy it.”  Although land may be redistributed “… the natural inequality of men soon re-creates an inequality of possessions and privileges, and raises to power a new minority with essentially the same instincts as in the old.” 

The only real revolution lies in the improvement of the mind and character of the people.  “… the only real revolutionists are philosophers and saints.”

Lesson

Governments come and go in the ebb and flow of history.  Most of the time people are ruled by one or a few powerful leaders, whether kings or political power brokers.  Once in a while the people attempt to take control of their destiny through republics or democracies, but since self-rule requires an uncommon degree of widespread intelligence and wisdom among the people, it seldom lasts long.  Because the ignorant are easily led by the molders of public opinion, unscrupulous demigods that promise security, entertainment, and equality grab power through revolution or consolidation of political power, establishing another tyranny in the name of the people.   

The history of the world is the history of accumulation of wealth and power by small groups, the most able or the most ruthless, and the subsequent rebellion of the masses against real or perceived injustice.  But wealth can be accumulated by the sword that impoverishes the masses or by industry that enriches them.  Unless people come to understand the difference, they will be prey to charismatic leaders that play upon their envy and jealousy, fomenting hatred and class warfare as a means to power. 

Whether we forge a new path or repeat the mistakes of the past depends upon the intelligence and wisdom of the people, not just the elite. 

 (See:  Hope for the Future)