Take a look at a world map and
you'll see some interesting patterns. Countries that have moved from
totalitarian states to semi-democracies in the past century have almost
all split, largely along ethnic or religious lines, into much smaller
countries, the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia being notable
examples. Iraq looks likely, after an inevitable civil war, to split
along ethnic and religious lines into three smaller nations before it
achieves any kind of meaningful democracy. Afghanistan's 'democracy' is
a sham, with all the real power still in the hands of autonomous tribal
warlords. Ethnic or religious minorities in a host of other countries
-- Russia and several of the former Soviet bloc countries, China,
India, Sudan, Turkey, Canada, Spain, among many others, continue to
struggle relentlessly for independence. In fact, other than the
incessantly fracturing Russia, the only physically large countries that
are left in the world are those that have either been democracies for
well over a century, or been kept together forcefully and tenuously by
ruthless dictators. And even the democracies are decentralizing,
transferring more and more of their national powers to increasingly
autonomous states, provinces and regions.
You would almost think that continuous fragmentation of the world into
smaller and smaller political units, a devolution of power, was the
natural order of things. Why should this be? My theory is that
culturally homogeneous areas are inherently easier to govern than
heterogeneous areas, and that people intuitively appreciate that
smaller political governmental units are more closely attuned to their
needs and wishes than larger ones.
There are four obvious constraints to this balkanization tendency:
- Defense: In a heavily populated, resource-constrained
world, despots and imperialists will inevitably arise. The easiest way
to defend against attacks from these tyrants is through political
union. Federation can also work, but it's harder and more tenuous,
since both political will and defense financing must be raised in each
member country.
- Economies of Scale: There's lots of evidence that there is
no such thing, especially in today's connected world, as 'economies of
scale'. Bigger is as likely to mean less efficient as more efficient.
But even if such economies are illusory, there remains a consensus that
reaching a certain 'critical mass' allows delivery of services more
cost-effectively per capita, and as long as enough people believe it,
it will constrain balkanization. And it is true that the more
governments you have involved in projects like transportation, energy,
and even social policy and environmental protection, the harder the
coordination gets.
- The 'Once You're So Big Might As Well Get Bigger' Rule: To
be truly responsive to individual people's needs, a government needs to
be really small and local. Is
a state or provincial government looking after a million people really
any closer to the needs of its constituents than a federal government
looking after a hundred million? If not, the argument goes, it would
make more sense to get rid of state and provincial governments than to
devolve most political power to them. If you're too big to look after a
community, you might as well at least exploit your size and get as big
as possible. This is the argument for some kind of loose 'global'
government, and it's hard to dispute.
- Local Tin-pot Dictators: In the days of hunter-gatherer
cultures and even more recently in pioneer settlements, communities
were self-selected and their members knew each other intimately. More
recently, local governments are often selected to represent
disenchanted and politically active minorities, and local power often
goes almost by default to those with ruthless ambition, wealth, or a
propensity for influence-peddling. The consequence is that the
reputation of local government is dreadful -- they tend to be even less
representative of the people than governments of larger political
units, poorly trained and skilled for the job, biased, corrupt, remote
and inefficient.
While these four constraints have prevented further balkanization in
countries where the national government tolerates it, these constraints
aren't inevitable or insoluble. Defense coalitions can certainly work
in today's connected world. The myth of economies of scale is being
debunked. Coordination of transportation and similar
trans-jurisdictional issues is arguably better than determination of
policy by a central government, since it is less likely to be biased
against lower-population, resource-poor communities, and more likely to
be responsive to local needs. And Intentional Communities may show us
a model for local community-based government that really works, more
effectively and responsibly than larger governments.
If these constraints could be overcome, would that be a good thing or a
bad thing? My intuition says that it would be a good thing, and also
that increasing balkanization and devolution of power is inevitable.
Ultimately government can only really be responsible if officials are
close enough to the people to be directly and personally affected by
every law and regulation they enact.
What would a world of a million autonomous governments based on
self-selected communities be like? In a world with sustainable levels
of population and resource consumption, and reasonable economic and
social egalitarianism, I think it would be ideal. In the real world we
face today, with none of these essential qualities for peace between
communities, I fear it will be a recipe for endless inter-community
warfare and strife. I guess we'll see.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
