03. Republicanism - First Ideal of the New Political Philosophy. (1 of 3)
THE FIVE IDEALS
The political philosophy forms one of the three foundations for the creation of the new Constitution and the reformed society that accompanies it. The others are the new political science and the new political economy
As described in Part 01. Fundamental Principles of a New Political Philosophy, fundamental to our political philosophy are Five Ideals
And each of the Five Ideals has Five Practical Means whereby the Ideals can be realised, however imperfectly, within the Constitution.
Before we can begin to formulate and put into words the Constitution itself, we need to describe in practical terms what the Constitution should aim to do.
To remind ourselves the Five Ideals for a Modern Republic are:
I. REPUBLICANISM
II. LIBERTY
III. DEMOCRACY
IV. POSITIVE RIGHTS
V. NON-AGGRESSIVE FOREIGN RELATIONS
These are Ideals to strive for. We may not be able to realise all of them, all of the time. They may even sometimes conflict with each other.
But we should not believe that the Ideals are fragile. Once established in a nation they are difficult to reverse. Once the people have tasted any of them, they do not easily let them go – at least not permanently.
To repeat, the Five Ideals are each defined for the purposes of a Modern Republic by Five Practical Means". The more each of the Practical Means are achieved the more the Ideal will be achieved.
Here we discuss the first of the Five Ideals, the Ideal of Republicanism
Part 01 Fundamental Principles of a New Political Philosophy set out the five primary goals that we as a society should wish to achieve. The five ideals are the means of achieving these goals insofar as that is possible
A. Civic virtue,
B. Personal freedom
C. Shared mutualism
D. Private wealth
E. World peace
Specifically the ideal of Republicanism delivers the first of these, Civic Virtue, for it creates the Institutions that embody and nurture that Virtue. Institutions make up the society that is the basis upon which our civilised society is built.
We need Civic Virtue because we want a Good Society. An efficient state that somehow managed to deliver material wellbeing without any sense of ethical human values would not satisfy us. And, in any case, it would not work.
I begin by briefly defining the Five Practical Means for realising this Ideal
Following this I will introduce the new political science of the four estates for these correspond to the first four of the five practical aspects of the ideal of republicanism and then I will give a more detailed discussion of the Practical Means in turn
REPUBLICANISM
FIVE PRACTICAL MEANS
The Ideal of Republicanism is embodied in the Constitution by the Five Practical Means and the first four of these correspond to the four Estates described under the new political science
These Practical Means give the basic structure of all institutions that are regulated under the Constitution.
Society, under our Political Science, also consists of “Free Agents”, as well as of the Estates, and these are either Individuals or Companies
Free Agents are regulated under the Law, that is, legal statute, not the Constitution directly. So Free Agents are not part of this discussion
The Five Practical Means of the Ideal of Republicanism are as follows.
1. SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATICALLY SELECTED (DEMOCRACY)
Separate Powers of Government are defined and these are embodied in separate, independent Government Institutions. All have a democratic element in selection. This, as we shall see, does not have to mean popular democracy
2. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND COMPANIES WITH “SPECIAL POWERS” (PLUTOCRACY)
Financial Institutions are banks and this includes the central bank and private banks that themselves bank with the central bank and can create credit money. Non-bank financial companies also are included as are pharmaceutical companies and defence suppliers as referred to below
3. CIVIL SOCIETY (MERITOCRACY)
The civil society comprises civil institutions. Civil institutions are distinct from democratic institutions for their members are appointed according to merit, qualification or achievement.
They are separated from the government as referred to in the first practical means of 1. - Democracy.
4. CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVICES (BUREAUCRACY)
In Britain we distinguish between the civil services (not to be confused with civil society) and public services. In France, for instance, these are lumped together and termed “fonctionaires” or functionaries in English.
The civil service serves the government - collecting taxes, technically drafting laws, providing bureaucratic support for the operations of the executive, the Treasury, and so on. We often refer to this loosely as “Whitehall”.
The public services serve the public – first responders like the police and the fire service and welfare services like healthcare education and pension provision.
5. REGIONAL/LOCAL GOVERNMENT
All republican nations in history have had a degree of regional and/or local government. Of course, this does not apply to the old republican city states which were small enough to be able to be governed as a unity.
Cities and towns in a republican nation also have their own local government apparatus in some form or another
THE FOUR ESTATES
It is important to understand that this arrangement of the Five Practical Means of attaining a republic is not conjured up out of thin air
The first four are based on the new political science which reveals that societies naturally form these different estates
Under the subject of political science, I will show how even in the most primitive societies these four Estates always exist albeit in a different form
Here we are concerned only with their modern form
What defines an “estate” and differentiates it from a “free agent”? An estate is granted special privileges by the constitution and in return is expected to behave in a way that goes beyond simple, independent private interest. So there is an exchange between the estate and society at large - kind of trade-off or, we might loosely say, “deal”
For each of the estates this arrangement is different and I will describe this below
The four Estates are not imposed on society but rather they exist by virtue of natural law
Natural law means they are inevitable and natural to human societies. To be clear, this is saying they are not brought into existence by the constitution, the constitution merely defines their operation for each nation.
They will always be there whether we think we want them or not. The task then is to constitute and govern them is the best possible way. Their actual detailed functioning, the constitution, in any particular time or place, decides
Excessively dictatorial states and rulers will try to abolish or control the estates but they tend to re-emerge in some form however truncated.
Historically, natural law has often meant God-given or, alternatively, it can be said to spring from the nature of humans. In the United States today the two tend to be intermixed.
The opening in the US Declaration of Independence that “We hold these Truths to be self-evident…” is a very good statement of what is meant by natural law
In practice, it makes no difference to the idea of natural law whether we believe it springs from god or from humanity. The essential point is that natural law is given to humans.
This is a fundamental point in designing this constitution.
In constitutional law and jurisprudence, the opposing idea is positivist law and this we reject
Positivist law means that each nation builds its own law and constitution independently based on its history and so it is not subject to any kind of universal, immutable principles, as natural law provides. English common law is an example of positivist law
REGIONAL/LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The last of the Five Practical Means of attaining a republic, namely, regional and civil government, arises from the fact that nations are too large to be ruled in every detail from the centre
However, regional and local government, to one extent or another, will contain the four Estates, all within the national framework
Total rule from the centre can only happen under a totalitarian tyranny, not under a Constitutional republic – or a Constitutional monarchy for that matter
Where tyranny rears its head within a republic, the republic is under dire threat
There is always a tendency for the executive to seek more powers and become to a greater or lesser extend tyrannical or dictatorial and this is particularly the case in the UK
There has existed, for two centuries at least, the threat to nations from the globalists, in one form or another, and this is very much the case today as we witness the present great globalist putsch for power
Now I will deal with each of the five Practical Means of attaining the first Ideal of Republicanism in some more detail. The first four of these encompass the four estates
1. FIRST ESTATE. SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATICALLY SELECTED (DEMOCRACY)
In a republic separate Powers of Government are defined and these are embodied in separate, independent Government Institutions. All have a democratic element in selection.
The main powers of republican government are the Executive, and the Legislature. The legislature is normally divided into two Houses (a bicameral system) which are themselves also subject to separation of powers. (The Judiciary incidentally comes under the third estate and so the third practical means, the civil society or meritocracy.)
Also, under the British and American Constitution there are Select Committees and Congressional Committees, respectively. These are not powers of government as they only have an advisory and investigatory role. They are made up of elected representatives who are selected by the executive.
If a position is appointed by a democratically elected person or body (for instance to a parliamentary committee) it will be said to have a democratic element in its selection.
Following Montesquieu and the US Founders, constitutions have tended to focus heavily on the operation of government and its institutions, or what I term the first estate, democracy. So the other estates, and the respective practical aspects to which they correspond, are played down or even ignored
This I believe has led to constitutions that are out of balance and do not model society in all its aspects. As a result we find ourselves today in deep trouble in all constitutional democracies with corruption and corporatism running amuck
This I seek to correct with a constitutional proposal, based on the new political science, which specifically identifies the three other “estates” as well as the democratically elected government
Also, the way that the first estate in Britain, that is, parliament and the prime minister led cabinet, requires special detailed analysis which I give elsewhere
In the case of the first estate, the exchange between the estate and society at large, which I explained must define an estate, is that members of the estate get to make big decisions on how we are governed and in return society gets to choose and dismiss them through the democratic process. Employment is thus insecure for members of the first estate
Contrast this with free agents, that is, individuals or private companies, who do as they like as long as it is within the law. They do not have any privileges under the constitution and consequently can legitimately put their own individual interests first, although it is to be hoped that they will not be insensitive to moral compunctions
2. SECOND ESTATE. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER COMPANIES WITH SPECIAL POWERS (PLUTOCRACY)
Financial institutions are banks and this includes the central bank and private banks plus financial companies.
The term “private bank” refers to financial companies that bank with the central bank and that have the right to create credit money on the principle of fractional reserve. These are correctly called institutions, as the organisations that make up all the estates, whereas as non-banks are simply companies
The exchange between this estate and society at large is that banks have the right to create credit money as a privilege and in return there are tight controls on their operations. Under the current regime of light touch regulation what society receives in return may seem like a joke, but this is how this estate should work and must work under the new constitution. In addition, “too big too fail” will no longer be able to exist under the new constitution
Financial companies include investment banks, building societies, retail and corporate lenders and insurance companies and these do not have this right to create credit and so are not strictly banks, but they still come under the Second Estate, the plutocracy, for they are privileged in being in charge of large amounts of money
Multinational companies, that operate in Britain, are also placed in this category, because their multinational status gives them many financial and taxation advantages not enjoyed by purely national companies. They require special constraints under the Constitution and the Law due to their “special powers”
Also pharmaceutical and defence suppliers should be classified under the second estate as they have great privileges due to the government being a major commissioner of their products.
And recent history has demonstrated only too well the power of pharmaceutics companies (Big Pharma) and the need to tight regulation. In the past such regulations were largely in place but due to corruption and corporatism these have been substantially weakened
Defence suppliers have become what President Eisenhower memorably called the “military industrial complex” where they put immense pressure on the government to commission their wars and so they encourage more wars and war preparation regardless of real military needs. This again the result of corruption and corporatism that will not be possible under the new constitution
3. THIRD ESTATE. CIVIL SOCIETY (MERITOCRACY)
The civil society comprises civil institutions. Civil institutions are different from democratic institutions and republican institutions for their members are appointed purely according to merit, qualification or achievement, by persons who themselves have no democratic mandate
These could be existing members of the civil institution or members of a committee
Note the important difference between republican institutions and civil institutions for in the case of the former, as I have explained, those doing the appointing do so by virtue of holding a democratic position, which establishes the democratic element.
So civil institutions, unlike republican institutions are not part of the government and the first estate.
They may have democratic procedures operating within them but membership is not decided by popular democratic vote
For instance, entry into professional institutions like the Law Society is decided by qualification usually meaning examination or similar. Merit and achievement/experience may also come into it.
The Judiciary is part of the civil society, not government, and this absolute separation has always been fundamental to Republicanism. However, the judiciary is usually lumped in as another Power of Government and this oversimplifies things.
See below for reference to supreme or constitutional courts which are also part of the third estate, the civil society.
Clubs, like snooker clubs or the Women’s Institute, and registered charities, also form a part of the civil society but only in a very loose sense and we are not really addressing these when we speak of civil institutions proper. Unlike institutions proper there will often be no vetting of members.
Civil institutions are constituted in such a way as to encourage virtue in their members and I will explain how this works in detail in some future posts.
But one key fact should be brought out. Unlike for democratic or republican institutions, membership of civil institutions is usually for life, or until the member voluntarily resigns. Normally expulsion is reserved for offenses against the institution and its principles
This means that the members need not have a regard for their re-election and bias their judgements according
Life membership takes them out of the political fray, at least in theory and this is a fundamental way of securing the republic
It is here that the exchange between society at large and the estate lies. The civil society has privileges usually in the form of advantages over others in the practice of their profession. This, in the case of professional institutions, such as the Law Society and the RIBA, will usually mean that that institution guarantees a monopoly or near monopoly over its activities. In exchange for this protection of function the members are expected to operate independently of their own interests, in other words, they must display virtue and objectivity
It is a sad reflection on the present times that virtue has virtually dropped out of the general vocabulary
As stated above, Republicanism, as a complete Ideal, in practice aims for virtue.
Lastly, under this heading, I should mention that under the new constitution, the membership of all civil societies and clubs or every kind must be made public
A particularly obnoxious example of a club that currently maintains a secret membership is Freemasonry. This fact enables it to operate as a “society within the society” favouring and privileging members over non-members, in for instance, contracts and policing and justice
There is no question of abolishing Freemasonry, or any other club, but they must be open about their membership and their aims. Civil institutions as defined are naturally open about their membership and proceedings
In this regard we should recall the momentous words of President John F. Kennedy made to The American Newspaper Publishers Association, in 27 April 1961
“The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.”
CIVIL SOCIETY. US SUPREME COURT
As the US Founders developed the Constitution, it became clear that, with a Republican Constitution, a new Power or Function was needed.
It was all very well to write a Constitution defining the different Institutions and how they should be formed and relate to each other, but the Framers wisely appreciated that provision must be made for resolving disputes between these different Institutions, regarding the nature and extent of the remit of each, amongst other things.
Without this provision the Constitution itself could be called into question. Conflict, even civil war, could result.
The Framers only had to look to history for confirmation of this possibility. The English Civil Wars resulted from the Monarch and Parliament not being able to agree on who had what authority.
The Roman Republic fell apart, some argued, because the Assemblies (the Tribunes) took over too much power from the Senate (the Aristocracy).
In neither case was there a higher authority to adjudicate on the issue, so it had to be settled by conflict.
The bold move that the Framers made was to create a superior body that had the power to resolve such matters - the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court would perform a Function that did not exist (at least not as a separate body), in the Britain upon which Montesquieu relied so heavily for his model, and so he had not identified the need for one.
This Function can also be called Protector of the Constitution.
Under the US Constitution the Supreme Court is regarded not as a separate Function, but as part of the Judiciary.
Whether you describe it as a separate Function or one incorporated into the Judiciary is a moot point for it operates according to its own independent remit.
The creation of the Supreme Court posed the question of how it should be made up given the fact that it would have to judge on the Constitution and so make decisions of the most profound nature for the future of the nation.
There was never any question of it being a Democratic Institution - only a Civil Institution would be capable of embodying the highest issues of state and jurisprudence. Only a civil institution could be independent of the cut and thrust of democracy and embody the permanence of the republic
Although independent in its operation, the US Supreme Court Justices are chosen by the President and ratified by the Senate.
This democratic element in the Court was put in place by the Founders as part of the system of checks and balances, but this does not, or should not, undermine the court’s independence for the following reason - and this I have already mentioned in regard to civil institutions in general, and is as follows
Appointment to the Supreme Court is for life. This is in order that the members of the court will not be persuaded to make decisions that might profit them in a future situation and also in order that they can never distance themselves from the Supreme Court rulings in their life time.
The Supreme Court as Protector of the Constitution is supposed to be above the political fray.
At present the US Supreme Court has been much discredited in the way its justices are manipulated but this is part of the widespread corruption of American political like and this is down to the familiar invasion of corporatism, not anything wrong in the principle of the Supreme Court.
The important subject of corporatism and its malign effects will be the subject of a separate part
CIVIL SOCIETY. UK SUPREME COURT
In the UK, the legal profession chooses the Supreme Court justices, without reference to the democratic machine, in closed sessions - or what used to be called “smoke-filled rooms”
The Supreme Court’s function used to be performed, more or less, by the so-called Law Lords, a collection of chosen members of the House of Lords.
It was formally created in 2009 and so has not been up and running very long. It remains to be seen if this total lack of any system of checks and balances with democratic institutions in its makeup is successful
For the present, my view is on the side of being positive and the state of the democratic machine is so corrupted by corporatism at the present time that its involvement with anything new can hardly be relished
We should note that the UK Supreme Court did an excellent job in late 2019 in the run up to the General Election in December 2019 when it stopped Prime Minister Johnson’s attempt to prorogue parliament (that is put it in “hibernation”) on a flimsy pretext, in order to steamroller through Brexit legislation.
That was clearly unconstitutional and Johnson was firmly slapped down by the supreme justices
Johnson did not forget or forgive this humiliation and, following his re-election with a massive majority, he started to make noises about abolishing the Supreme Court – a clear act of revenge
This is a lesson in how fragile and ridiculous the constitutional situation is in the UK. Just imagine a US President threatening to abolish the US Supreme Court!
(In passing I would note that the UK Supreme Court was initiated in the Prime Ministership of the odious Sir Tony Blair, one of the just two commendable things he did in office, the other being the Freedom of Information Act.)
FRENCH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Lastly, the Constitutional Court of France is selected either by right (for example past presidents in France automatically sit on the Constitutional Court) or by a college system made up of elected positions.
They are perhaps less a part of the Judiciary than in the US or UK and this is not desirable
This lack of separation may explain why, the French Constitutional Court is of late performing very badly, and seems to be a servant of the executive. But that is part of a general corporatist malaise resulting from the familiar weaknesses in present constitutions that I have described, not a problem with the principle of Protector of the Constitution