Image credit: Freepik
Today, I’ll look towards the future. It’s becoming obvious
to just about everyone that the political system, under which we have lived all
our lives, has failed. So, I think it’s time to try to sketch out an
alternative system; one that can give us some hope of a better future.
I see a need for discussion of fresh ideas about politics.
Few people today are in any position to spark such a discussion; yet, so it
seems, my philosophical work over the last few decades may perhaps have put me
in such a place. So, here goes!
Governance versus government
I call my system “just governance.” Its principal function
is to deliver, to everyone, the justice which each individual deserves. I define
the ideal I call “common-sense justice” as follows: “The condition in which
each individual is to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as
practicable, as he or she treats others.” And because of this, everyone is
responsible for the reasonably foreseeable effects of their voluntary actions
on others.
I shall dub the old system “government,”
in contrast to the new “governance.”
The purpose of governance
According to John Locke, the main reason why people should seek
to work together to form a government is “their comfortable, safe and peaceable
living.” Specifically, the objectives are the preservation of their property,
and the preservation and enlargement of their freedoms.
My own take is that the purpose of building civilizations,
and in the process forming some kind of governance, is to provide for ourselves
a habitat of: Peace and tranquillity. Respect for our humanity and dignity. Objective,
individual justice. Human rights and freedoms. A free market, and free trade.
In such an environment, we human beings can all be free, prosperous and happy.
Constraints on governance
In terms of my ethical and political philosophy, as
expressed at [[1]]
and [[2]]:
1)
Governance must satisfy the ethical equality
principle: Among human beings, what is right for one to do, is right for
another to do in similar circumstances, and vice versa. Thus, governance
must deliver the rule of law, and must not arrogate to itself moral privileges.
2)
The law to be upheld, and at need enforced, by
governance must be the natural law of humanity. Its essence, it forbids doing unjust
harm to others in their life, health, liberty or possessions. In particular, no-one
– including anyone in governance – may unjustly harm any human being who
adheres to this natural law.
3)
Governance must uphold the rights and freedoms of
all human beings who respect the equal rights and freedoms of others. This
includes the right to dignity: that is, to be treated with the respect due to a
human being.
4)
Governance must satisfy the common-sense justice
principle. That is, that every individual should be treated, over the long run,
in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.
5)
Governance must satisfy the maximum freedom
principle. Every individual is free to choose and act as he or she wishes.
Provided only that their actions do not unjustly violate the rights or freedoms
of, cause harm to, or impose unreasonable risks of harm on, others.
In addition, to measure up to the Enlightenment values, to
which all governance must keep:
6)
Governance must have a clear and publicly
available constitution, specifying the limits of what it may and may not do.
7)
No part of the power of governance may ever be
transferred to any external party or parties.
8)
Everything governance does must be directed to
the benefit of those it governs. Indeed, to the benefit of every single
individual among them; except only those that violate the natural law of
humanity.
9)
Governance must never undertake any project for
which the costs to the governed, financial or otherwise, are greater than the
benefits which accrue to them from the project.
10) Governance
may not unjustly put any obstacle in the way of the economic free market, or of
anyone’s access to it; or in the way of honest business activity.
Just governance
Here is my outline proposal for a new, bottom-up system of
governance, which can replace, and fix the problems with, the current,
top-down, failed system of political states and governments.
The new system will govern communities of individuals, in
much the same way as a referee governs a football match. It will also
adjudicate as needed on the relationships between those individuals, the
voluntary societies to which they belong, and other individuals and societies
they interact with.
Just governance will be bottom-up and de-politicized. It
will focus on the individual, and on small communities. It will not allow any
political or religious ideology or agenda to be imposed on any of the governed
against their wills. Moreover, it will not seek to control or to meddle with
economic activity in any way, unless that activity unjustly causes objective
damage to others, or violates their rights, or imposes on others unreasonable
risks of harm.
In structure, it will be like a network, not a hierarchy. It
will have no central or commanding point, at which undue concentration of
political power can collect. Except in clear emergency, it will be reactive
rather than pro-active. And it will have no mechanisms to enable one interest
group unjustly to override the interests of others.
Just governance need not be territorial. Indeed, in the
future, most just governances will not be territorial. But as long as there still
exist legacy states, to defend against their aggressions the community such a
governance serves will need to be defined as the inhabitants of a particular
territory. I refer to such a governance as an “area of just governance.”
The natural law of humanity and the Convivial Code
I addressed the natural law of humanity, and the “Convivial
Code” which will encapsulate it, at [[3]]. I quoted John Locke’s one-sentence
statement of it: “being all equal and independent, no-one ought to harm another
in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” And I gave my own “code lite” of
25 obligations, positive and negative. Principal among these is to respect the
human rights and freedoms of all those who respect the equal rights and
freedoms of other human beings.
I also gave some draft outlines of the rights, which each of
us earns by keeping to the natural law of humanity, at [[4]]. I
couched those rights specifically in terms of how governance ought to treat us.
But under the ethical equality principle, how individuals in governance should
behave, and how everyone else should behave, must be the same.
One major way in which the Code will differ from systems of
political laws is that for long periods, sometimes over many centuries, it will
be timeless. Changes only become necessary when circumstances occur which have
not been envisaged before, or human nature itself changes, or new knowledge
becomes available about it. And these events are rare. So, absent such events,
the Code will be applicable retrospectively.
The functions of just governance
I recently addressed, at [[5]], the question “what should be the
functions of government?” I came up with these:
1)
A legislative with extremely circumscribed
powers.
2)
A police force or equivalent, to assure peace
and tranquillity among the governed, and to uphold the rights and freedoms –
including property rights – of all who respect the equal rights and freedoms of
others.
3)
A defensive and at need retaliatory military, to
defend against violent aggressors.
4)
Impartial, objective and honest courts of
justice, covering compensatory and penal law. With the associated support
services, such as prisons.
5)
A quality assurance system, to ensure that
governance always acts for the public good.
6)
A fair and just system of financing the other
governance functions.
There are also a few subsidiary functions.
The legislative
In contrast to today, once just governance is up and
running, the legislative will be a fairly unimportant part of it. For its code
of law, the natural law of humanity, comes from human nature, not from edicts
made by political élites. So, it must be discovered, not invented.
Moreover, under that code of law, every human being is
ethically equal. Unlike today, there will be no moral privileges for governance
or its officials – including those in the legislative.
As I identified at [5], just governance will have power to make
laws. But these laws must always aim at the good of all the governed –
every individual human being. When put into effect, they must defend the lives,
liberties and possessions of the governed, never destroy or damage them.
Further, laws made by just governance may only explicate or interpret the
natural law of humanity. They must never contradict it, violate it, or go
beyond its bounds.
Thus, in just governance, the legislative will be needed in only
a few situations:
1)
Initial construction and agreement of the Code.
2)
Determining when a change is necessary to the
Code.
3)
Specifying the changes.
4)
Managing the introduction of a new version of
the Code.
So, crucially, just governance will not have any permanent
legislative. As to who should be part of it when it is required, its
work will require significant input from “experts.” But what it does must be
validated by the governed, with everyone’s views taken into account.
Local and emergency rules
There will, at times and in places, be a need to make what
I call “local rules.” These are sane, sensible, non-politicized conventions for
the benefit of all users of the public space (that is, space open to all) in an
area. Like which side of the road you should drive on. But local rules must be
kept to a minimum.
There may also be a need to make temporary rules in the
event of a clear emergency, such as a flood or an epidemic. But the scope and
period of such rules must be as limited as possible.
Assurance of peace, tranquillity, rights and freedoms
The function of just governance, which assures peace and
tranquillity and defends rights and freedoms, must be able to intervene in the
event of breaches or planned breaches of peace, tranquillity, rights or
freedoms.
If one or more individuals have violated the natural law of
humanity and brought about, or planned to bring about, such a breach, and there
is no doubt as to the perpetrators, then just governance must be able to detain
them for the purpose of examination by a court of justice. This represents another
deviation from the natural law of humanity, beyond self-defence and defence of
others, to be allowed for the purpose of bringing wrongdoers to justice.
Because of the ethical equality principle, what is right for
anyone to do if employed by governance to seek out and detain wrongdoers, must
also be right for anyone else. Thus, just governance will enable a “citizen’s
arrest” of wrongdoers, with the same safeguards as for an arrest by agents of
governance. Such as requiring reasonable grounds for detention, and suspects to
be clearly told what they are accused of.
Just governance will also need to investigate likely suspects
for real wrongdoings which have taken place. Or to monitor those reasonably
suspected of carrying out, having carried out, or planning to carry out, real
wrongdoings. As with the citizen’s arrest, anyone who can show reasonable
suspicions about someone’s conduct may monitor them, provided this does not
violate their rights or freedoms. This forms another exceptional reason to
allow deviation from the natural law of humanity.
Another aspect of the upholding rights function might be the
emergency services which today are often required, with or without police, at
or after incidents.
Rights against unjustified privacy or dignity violations
But in contrast to today, there will be rights explicitly
specified in the Convivial Code against unjustified invasions of privacy, or
violations of the dignity appropriate to a human being. These will provide
protections against unjust surveillance or detention, similar to those of the
US fourth amendment against unjust search or seizure.
Random stop-and-search will be prohibited, as will be use of
facial recognition technology in public places. Moreover, neither governance
nor anyone else will be allowed to record people’s movements using cameras,
except in proven and clearly signed crime “hot spots,” or for a specific
purpose like collecting tolls on new infrastructure. Nor will it be allowed to
track individuals from place to place as they travel around, without reasonable
suspicion of them having committed, committing, or planning to commit, a real
wrongdoing. Nor will data in a database ever be allowed to take precedence over
evidence in a court of justice.
Defence against violent aggressors
Under the current system, the UK military and police are
separate entities, with separate purposes. I envisage that in just governance,
the differences between the equivalent functions will be mainly in the kinds of
crimes they defend people against. The police function, above, will deal mainly
with non-violent wrongdoings. Whereas the defence-against-aggressors function
will deal with violent actors, whether from inside or outside the people
governed.
The defence-against-aggressors function will be able to
defend people throughout the governance, and to retaliate against aggressors
where appropriate. But it will not have any right to use violence against
non-aggressors. Just governances will not carry out unprovoked military
adventures such as Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela.
The judicial function
The primary institutions of just governance will be
judicial, including impartial arbitration of disputes and objective assessment
of externalities and risks. The major institution will be courts of just
governance. Where appropriate, pre-existing local procedures will be used, like
jury trials.
Ultimately, the authority of just governance can only come
from its objectivity, its honesty, its impartiality, and the common-sense
nature of its principles.
As in today’s legal systems, I expect there will be two main
areas of justice. On one hand, arbitration and restorative justice; that is,
the resolution of disputes, and the calculation and ordering of restitution for
wrongs. And on the other, criminal or retributive justice.
Unlike today, in criminal justice there will
be no kind of “strict liability.” No-one will suffer any punishment beyond
being made to provide restitution, unless they have acted with extreme
recklessness, or with intent to harm, or otherwise to violate the natural law
of humanity.
Another aspect of the judicial function will be to make
objective assessments of actual or alleged externalities (side effects), such
as pollution or noise, which can reasonably be expected to cause damage to
others. If appropriate, those that cause such externalities will be made to
compensate the individuals and groups provenly affected by the damage they
caused, each in proportion to the amount of harm they suffer. The judicial
function will also be able to analyze and assess actual or alleged risks, in much
the same way as for externalities.
Quality assurance
Just governance will also include strong quality assurance
on its own processes. For example, lying, or any kind of dishonesty, by
officials of governance against the interests of the people they are supposed
to be serving will be a dismissal offence.
Regular audits will also be conducted on both the
value-for-money to the governed of all projects of governance, and the honesty,
objectivity, openness and transparency of all those in positions of any power. Any
violation of ethical principles of public life, such as the Nolan Principles I
discussed at [[6]],
will also be treated as very serious.
How to pay for just governance
What an individual is expected to pay for just governance
should be strictly in proportion to the benefit he or she gets from it. I see
the benefits provided by just governance – for example, protection of property
– as being in direct relation to the individual’s total wealth. Thus, periodic
payments should be in proportion to the individual’s total wealth at the time.
There will be no taxes on incomes or on transactions. Nor
will there be any kind of re-distributory or confiscatory taxation.
In the best of all worlds, just governance might be funded,
in an area with a common currency, without any form of taxation resembling
today’s. This could be done by allowing the currency to be inflated by a small
percentage each month or year. About 1.5% a year (0.125% a month) was my
back-of-an-envelope figure for what might be needed to support the core
functions of just governance.
Subsidiary functions
Just governance will also need some extra minor functions,
such as diplomacy with other just governances and, for a time, with legacy
states. Another possible function would be some level of co-ordination of
infrastructure development between neighbouring communities.
Comparison with today’s governments
In stark contrast to today’s governments, a just governance
will have no political or religious agendas. It will not pick favourites to be
treated better than they deserve, or scapegoats to be treated worse. And it
will never intentionally impose costs on groups or individuals for anything
that does not bring corresponding benefits to those same groups or individuals.
If an apparent problem surfaces, it will be evaluated objectively and honestly before any action is taken on it. The true version of the precautionary principle, “look before you leap,” will be restored. No precipitate action will be taken unless the claimed problem is shown to be, beyond reasonable doubt, real. No action will be taken that imposes costs on anyone who is not provably a part of the cause of a problem. And should a problem raised be found to have been based on false claims, just governance will take appropriate action against those that made, or aided or abetted, the false claims.
