Marcus and Benedictus
Secularism and Democracy
Marcus: I believe those elements that are promoting democracy as the highest achievement of Western Civilisation,as a civilisational intrusion, are sorely mistaken.
Benedictus: Why do you say this, Marce?
M: Democracy cannot flourish in a theocracy. Democracy can only exist meaningfully in an environment where the opinions of men hold sway, not the opinions of theologians. In an Islamic traditional Sharia based system ,democracy cannot function, nor could it function in much of pre-reformation Europe. Democracy, as we know it in the West, the so-called 'Westminster System ' of governance, evolved from the commonality of the citizens of the Saxon and Mediaeval City of London, who formed the original Common Council. This was an entirely secular institution, with 100 elected members ( up to 240 at times), which passed Acts of Common Council, making its own laws, and governed the City of London as a completely secular institution. The City of London was, and largely remains, a State within a State. The monarch had no power in the City. Parliament in Westminster was copied from this template. It was always a secular template.
B: So, are you saying that our democracy has nothing to do with the democracy of the ancient Greeks and Romans?
M: On the contrary. The democratic system of government that survived in the City of London was a direct descendent of the structures of Roman government. The city was divided into wards ( a Curia), each ward elected a ruling magistrate (a Senator), and a number of Common Councilmen (tribunes of the plebs) to serve as the Court of Common Council (The Plebeian Council) of that ward. They met at a wardmote, and carried out all the business of the ward - all the details of local governance, such as policing,street cleaning, etc. The councilmen also met at larger monthly meetings, in the Parliament of the City: Commune Consilium. The Senators also met in the Senate (The Court of Alderman).
The House of Commons of the British Parliament , in Latin is also styled Commune Consilium, and the House of Lords, are are essentially carbon copies of one another - and developed from the relict Roman system that had been preserved in the City of London. There was one exception: in the City of London all officials were elected. The House of Lords of the British Parliament to this day is not elected. It is predominantly secular.
B: But please, lets get back to the topic - why do you say that secularism is more important?
M: I say this, because such a system can only exist where church and state are separated. They were in Ancient Rome, to all intents and purposes, and late Roman, early British and then the Saxon administration, followed by the mediaeval administration of London inherited this Roman system of government, and perpetuated it, right down to its details. Until the 1990's elections in the City of London were annual, just as they were in ancient Rome, in order to stamp out the growth of vested interests and to limit the potential for corruption. There are two Sherrifs, mirroring the two serving consuls,and a Lord Mayor, who functions as the Emperor, but who is elected annually, just as the Consuls were in ancient Rome. But enough of the details of City of London governance.
B: So, you are saying that this particular system can only function if there is free voting,where the elected officials can function unrestricted by the church and clergy?
M: Yes. Systems such as a Sharia system, or the pre-Napoleonic Jewish legal system that was allowed to function in Europe (until swept away by Napoleon), by definition restrict themselves to revealed scripture for governance. Such systems lead to theocracies, not democracies. They lead to limitations on personal freedom. The mistake made by the West has been to trumpet democracy as a prime value in and of itself. Democracy however, requires a particular ecosystem in which to function.
B: So you think a secular dictator is better than a 'democratic theocracy'?
M: Yes, I think a secular dictatorship, such as that of Saddam Hussein, or Bashir Assad, has more in common with Western Civilisational values, than a theocratic democracy. If the West had supported Assad from the outset, the revolution in Syria would not have taken the form it did, and fewer lives would have been lost. We would not now be facing the prospect, if Assad were to lose, of yet another theocratic state arising in the Middle East.
Perhaps in time such a dictatorship as Assad's can be moved to increase elements of democratic decision making in governance, while enforcing a strict separation between church and state. However, that is less important than enforced secularism. A secular state allows for freedom. It allows for women's liberation, sexual minority rights, and other things that would be intolerable in a theocratic democracy.
B: I suppose a case in point would be what happened in Gaza once a semi-theocratic regime won an election?
M: Yes. The Palestinian Fatah organisation, despite its faults, was secular. Hamas is emphatically not. Under Fatah, and the dictatorial rule of Arafat, there was a degree of personal freedom. Christian bookshops could open safely in Gaza, women could dress as they pleased, alcohol was available, and other minorities were not openly persecuted - although life was not easy for them. There was freedom of the literary press, although political press freedom was still restricted to some degree. Hamas, on the other hand, censors books or prohibits publication.
From 2007 to 2011 the population of Christians in Gaza has halved.
Under Hamas the education system in Gaza has become theocratic. Traditional dress (the hijab) is increasingly enforced. The Christian Arab minority was openly persecuted and obstructed. in 2013 UNWRA decided to cancel the annual Gaza marathon, as Hamas refused to allow women to run in the race. Women have also been banned from smoking shisha in public, and must cover their heads when entering government controlled buildings. Mixed gender socialising has been restricted.
B: So, you are saying, that from the perspective of the West, it would have been better not to allow elections at all, but to continue to support the unelected, secular Fatah government, as being more in line with Western Civilisational values?
M: Yes, emphatically so. Indeed, I think that is why there is currently no pressure on Abbas in the Palestinian Territories to face re-election. His democratic mandate has expired, and he is in functional terms now a dictator or despot - but he is a secular despot. There is no pressure from the West to remove him, and no move to call for elections. Perhaps what happened in Gaza has taught an object lesson. Furthermore, voices are starting to be heard that a secular Assad is perhaps better than a democratically elected theocracy, which would almost inevitably arise, should Assad fall.
B: This is paradoxical - that denying a freedom - a freedom to select your system of government - can end up giving the individuals in a society more freedom?
M: Yes. I can understand the call for democracy from an absolute moral perspective, but we do not live in a perfect world. I also do not think that democracy is the greatest gift that Western Civilisation has to offer. I think it is secularism. Napoleon was hardly a democrat - he came to power through a coup d'etat, yet it was his imposition of the Napoleonic Code that by and large created the secular Europe we know today. Napoleon himself was a Deist - believing in a God who was largely absent from the direct works of man and the world - an Epicurean God, who did nothing and performed nothing. The affairs of the world were in the hands of man. The secularism developed along different lines in England, but was essentially the same animal as the secularism that was imposed on Europe by Napoleon.
B: So, you are saying that the West should support the Napoleons of this world? Men like Assad, and Saddam Hussein, who ruled despotically, but with a secular, not theocratic ethos? Men like the Shah in Iran should have been supported?
M: Yes. Unequivocally. The West should have applied pressure to encourage reduction of excessive repression, while supporting secularism. I think that would have been more in the interests of the West. For example, the current Egyptian regime is secular. Its interests are closely aligned with those of the West, in civilisational terms. Yet, for some reason, America is rejecting it. American foreign policy appears to be placing democracy as a higher value. I think this is a major error, a major misunderstanding about what values actually underpin Western Civilisation.
B: Surely you can argue that in time, once a democratic mechanism is put in place, a more enlightened society will arise?
M: One could argue that. However, I doubt the democratic system would survive the election of a theocratic regime. That election would be the last free election, and the only means of regime change would be revolution, as occurred in Egypt.
B: I still want to look into this matter in more detail. Perhaps we can continue this conversation another time, as I am still in doubt. None of this conversation leaves me feeling entirely comfortable. I also want to clarify further what exactly you mean by Western Civilisational values. Do you mean Christian values,or a form of secular Epicureanism? Democracy is something that I believe should still be fostered and promoted. But perhaps you are correct, in the short term; the West should be protecting secular regimes, regardless of their political structures, if they protect personal freedoms, the rights of women and minorities. Perhaps the west should be applying soft diplomacy to expand and reward increases in personal freedom within these dictatorial secular regimes. I also want to look into the question of how the West might best approach those societies currently in the hands of theocrats. Should such societies have revolution fomented within them, to give rise to a secular despotic regime? That is an interesting question worthy of discussion.
Should secularism be our highest value, and should we be encouraging it within those societies, so that they will allow freedom of religion and personal rights, including the liberation of women and other minorities?
Secularism and Democracy
Marcus: I believe those elements that are promoting democracy as the highest achievement of Western Civilisation,as a civilisational intrusion, are sorely mistaken.
Benedictus: Why do you say this, Marce?
M: Democracy cannot flourish in a theocracy. Democracy can only exist meaningfully in an environment where the opinions of men hold sway, not the opinions of theologians. In an Islamic traditional Sharia based system ,democracy cannot function, nor could it function in much of pre-reformation Europe. Democracy, as we know it in the West, the so-called 'Westminster System ' of governance, evolved from the commonality of the citizens of the Saxon and Mediaeval City of London, who formed the original Common Council. This was an entirely secular institution, with 100 elected members ( up to 240 at times), which passed Acts of Common Council, making its own laws, and governed the City of London as a completely secular institution. The City of London was, and largely remains, a State within a State. The monarch had no power in the City. Parliament in Westminster was copied from this template. It was always a secular template.
B: So, are you saying that our democracy has nothing to do with the democracy of the ancient Greeks and Romans?
M: On the contrary. The democratic system of government that survived in the City of London was a direct descendent of the structures of Roman government. The city was divided into wards ( a Curia), each ward elected a ruling magistrate (a Senator), and a number of Common Councilmen (tribunes of the plebs) to serve as the Court of Common Council (The Plebeian Council) of that ward. They met at a wardmote, and carried out all the business of the ward - all the details of local governance, such as policing,street cleaning, etc. The councilmen also met at larger monthly meetings, in the Parliament of the City: Commune Consilium. The Senators also met in the Senate (The Court of Alderman).
The House of Commons of the British Parliament , in Latin is also styled Commune Consilium, and the House of Lords, are are essentially carbon copies of one another - and developed from the relict Roman system that had been preserved in the City of London. There was one exception: in the City of London all officials were elected. The House of Lords of the British Parliament to this day is not elected. It is predominantly secular.
B: But please, lets get back to the topic - why do you say that secularism is more important?
M: I say this, because such a system can only exist where church and state are separated. They were in Ancient Rome, to all intents and purposes, and late Roman, early British and then the Saxon administration, followed by the mediaeval administration of London inherited this Roman system of government, and perpetuated it, right down to its details. Until the 1990's elections in the City of London were annual, just as they were in ancient Rome, in order to stamp out the growth of vested interests and to limit the potential for corruption. There are two Sherrifs, mirroring the two serving consuls,and a Lord Mayor, who functions as the Emperor, but who is elected annually, just as the Consuls were in ancient Rome. But enough of the details of City of London governance.
B: So, you are saying that this particular system can only function if there is free voting,where the elected officials can function unrestricted by the church and clergy?
M: Yes. Systems such as a Sharia system, or the pre-Napoleonic Jewish legal system that was allowed to function in Europe (until swept away by Napoleon), by definition restrict themselves to revealed scripture for governance. Such systems lead to theocracies, not democracies. They lead to limitations on personal freedom. The mistake made by the West has been to trumpet democracy as a prime value in and of itself. Democracy however, requires a particular ecosystem in which to function.
B: So you think a secular dictator is better than a 'democratic theocracy'?
M: Yes, I think a secular dictatorship, such as that of Saddam Hussein, or Bashir Assad, has more in common with Western Civilisational values, than a theocratic democracy. If the West had supported Assad from the outset, the revolution in Syria would not have taken the form it did, and fewer lives would have been lost. We would not now be facing the prospect, if Assad were to lose, of yet another theocratic state arising in the Middle East.
Perhaps in time such a dictatorship as Assad's can be moved to increase elements of democratic decision making in governance, while enforcing a strict separation between church and state. However, that is less important than enforced secularism. A secular state allows for freedom. It allows for women's liberation, sexual minority rights, and other things that would be intolerable in a theocratic democracy.
B: I suppose a case in point would be what happened in Gaza once a semi-theocratic regime won an election?
M: Yes. The Palestinian Fatah organisation, despite its faults, was secular. Hamas is emphatically not. Under Fatah, and the dictatorial rule of Arafat, there was a degree of personal freedom. Christian bookshops could open safely in Gaza, women could dress as they pleased, alcohol was available, and other minorities were not openly persecuted - although life was not easy for them. There was freedom of the literary press, although political press freedom was still restricted to some degree. Hamas, on the other hand, censors books or prohibits publication.
From 2007 to 2011 the population of Christians in Gaza has halved.
Under Hamas the education system in Gaza has become theocratic. Traditional dress (the hijab) is increasingly enforced. The Christian Arab minority was openly persecuted and obstructed. in 2013 UNWRA decided to cancel the annual Gaza marathon, as Hamas refused to allow women to run in the race. Women have also been banned from smoking shisha in public, and must cover their heads when entering government controlled buildings. Mixed gender socialising has been restricted.
B: So, you are saying, that from the perspective of the West, it would have been better not to allow elections at all, but to continue to support the unelected, secular Fatah government, as being more in line with Western Civilisational values?
M: Yes, emphatically so. Indeed, I think that is why there is currently no pressure on Abbas in the Palestinian Territories to face re-election. His democratic mandate has expired, and he is in functional terms now a dictator or despot - but he is a secular despot. There is no pressure from the West to remove him, and no move to call for elections. Perhaps what happened in Gaza has taught an object lesson. Furthermore, voices are starting to be heard that a secular Assad is perhaps better than a democratically elected theocracy, which would almost inevitably arise, should Assad fall.
B: This is paradoxical - that denying a freedom - a freedom to select your system of government - can end up giving the individuals in a society more freedom?
M: Yes. I can understand the call for democracy from an absolute moral perspective, but we do not live in a perfect world. I also do not think that democracy is the greatest gift that Western Civilisation has to offer. I think it is secularism. Napoleon was hardly a democrat - he came to power through a coup d'etat, yet it was his imposition of the Napoleonic Code that by and large created the secular Europe we know today. Napoleon himself was a Deist - believing in a God who was largely absent from the direct works of man and the world - an Epicurean God, who did nothing and performed nothing. The affairs of the world were in the hands of man. The secularism developed along different lines in England, but was essentially the same animal as the secularism that was imposed on Europe by Napoleon.
B: So, you are saying that the West should support the Napoleons of this world? Men like Assad, and Saddam Hussein, who ruled despotically, but with a secular, not theocratic ethos? Men like the Shah in Iran should have been supported?
M: Yes. Unequivocally. The West should have applied pressure to encourage reduction of excessive repression, while supporting secularism. I think that would have been more in the interests of the West. For example, the current Egyptian regime is secular. Its interests are closely aligned with those of the West, in civilisational terms. Yet, for some reason, America is rejecting it. American foreign policy appears to be placing democracy as a higher value. I think this is a major error, a major misunderstanding about what values actually underpin Western Civilisation.
B: Surely you can argue that in time, once a democratic mechanism is put in place, a more enlightened society will arise?
M: One could argue that. However, I doubt the democratic system would survive the election of a theocratic regime. That election would be the last free election, and the only means of regime change would be revolution, as occurred in Egypt.
B: I still want to look into this matter in more detail. Perhaps we can continue this conversation another time, as I am still in doubt. None of this conversation leaves me feeling entirely comfortable. I also want to clarify further what exactly you mean by Western Civilisational values. Do you mean Christian values,or a form of secular Epicureanism? Democracy is something that I believe should still be fostered and promoted. But perhaps you are correct, in the short term; the West should be protecting secular regimes, regardless of their political structures, if they protect personal freedoms, the rights of women and minorities. Perhaps the west should be applying soft diplomacy to expand and reward increases in personal freedom within these dictatorial secular regimes. I also want to look into the question of how the West might best approach those societies currently in the hands of theocrats. Should such societies have revolution fomented within them, to give rise to a secular despotic regime? That is an interesting question worthy of discussion.
Should secularism be our highest value, and should we be encouraging it within those societies, so that they will allow freedom of religion and personal rights, including the liberation of women and other minorities?
No comments:
Post a Comment