In
this essay I wish to summarize, quote, and comment on what I found in
some of the works of Poul Anderson on the issue of political legitimacy.
One very important point to be found in his thought where it touches on
politics is his insistence on the need for the state, any state, to be
LEGITIMATE, for it to believe itself having the right to govern and for
its people to also believe it is legitimate. And it does not matter
what form, republic or monarchy (or any other form), a state has--it
still needs to be regarded as legitimate if it is to govern reasonably
well (or at least not too badly).
In THE REBEL WORLDS
we see Dominic Flandry doing his best to ruin the revolt of an Imperial
admiral, Hugh McCormac, against the reigning Emperor, Josip III. And
this despite McCormac being a vastly better and more able man than
Josip. In Chapter XV we see Flandry explaining to McCormac himself why a
successful usurpation would have been disastrous for the Empire: "You'd
have destroyed the principle of legitimacy. The Empire will outlive
Josip. Its powerful vested interests, its cautious bureaucrats, its
size and inertia, will keep him from doing enormous harm. But if you
took the throne by force, why shouldn't another discontented admiral do
the same in another generation? And another and another, till civil
wars rip the Empire to shreds. Till the Merseians come in, and the
barbarians. You yourself hired barbarians to fight Terrans, McCormac.
No odds whether or not you took precautions, the truth remains that you
brought them in, and sooner or later we'll get a rebel who doesn't mind
conceding them territory. And the Long Night falls."
I
quoted the bit about the principle of legitimacy to Poul Anderson in my
first letter to him and asked why Flandry later supported a usurper who
had seized the throne by force. In a letter dated 8 May 1978 Anderson
replied: "As a matter of fact, you are not the first to point out the
inconsistency in Flandry's remarks about legitimacy as the basic
necessity of government, in THE REBEL WORLDS, and the fact that later
he supported Hans Molitor, whose only claim to the throne was sheer
force. Perhaps I should have spelled out in more detail what was left
implicit: that Flandry was making the best of a bad situation."
An
admirably clear statement of Flandry's views about legitimacy can be
found nearly forty years later in Chapter VI of A STONE IN HEAVEN: "Once
as a young fellow I found myself supporting the abominable Josip
against McCormac--Remember McCormac's Rebellion? He was infinitely the
better man. Anybody would have been. But Josip was the legitimate
Emperor; and legitimacy is the root and branch of government. How else,
in spite of the cruelties and extortions and ghastly mistakes it's
bound to perpetrate--how else, by what right, can it command loyalty?
If it is not the servant of Law, then it is nothing but a temporary
convenience at best. At worse, it's raw force."
As a
conservative/libertarian Poul Anderson was very skeptical of the state
and frequently warned in his works of how easily tyranny can arise. And
he declared democracies were more prone in some ways to becoming
tyrannical than other forms of government. A good example of one of his
characters expressing libertarian skepticism about the state or a
society can be found in Chapter XXI of OPERATION CHAOS, Steven Matuchek
speaking: "I wouldn't think much of a youngster who never felt an urge
to kick the God of Things As They Are in his fat belly. It's too bad
that most people lose it as they get old and fat themselves. The
Establishment is often unendurably smug and stupid, the hands it folds
so piously are often bloodstained." I immediately thought of
"legalized" abortion as one of those bloody horrors we tolerate too
easily and smugly.
However, Poul Anderson was also a
conservative and realist who knew the state was a necessity, as this
additional quote from the same Chapter XXI of OPERATION CHAOS shows:
"And yet...and yet...it's the only thing between us and the Dark Ages
that'd have to intervene before another and probably worse Establishment
could arise to restore order. And don't kid yourself that none would.
Freedom is a fine thing until it becomes somebody else's freedom to
enter your house, kill, rob, rape, and enslave the people you care
about. Then you'll accept any man on horseback who promises to bring
some predictability back into life, and you yourself will give him his
saber and knout." In other words, every state has bloody origins or
will have blood on its hands. And I argue that one means for any state
becoming less tyrannical is for it to become accepted as legitimate.
In
the Introduction he wrote for the Gregg Press (1978) edition of THE
LONG WAY HOME, one of his earlier novels, Poul Anderson said on page v:
"You'll note where a born-and-bred slave, intelligent and well-educated,
argues in favor of slavery as an institution with the shocked hero. I
intended the incident as a touch of character and background. After
all, people usually do support the regimes under which they live, if
only passively. No government which lacked that kind of acceptance
would last a day. It is a sad commentary on our species--a commentary I
thought I was making--that by and large, the most monstrous tyrannies
have been endured, yes, excused by their most immediate victims." The
points I'm stressing being how that ACCEPTANCE fits in with what I
quoted from OPERATION CHAOS and how it's a necessary condition before
any government can survive and be thought legitimate. I want to prevent
a possible misunderstanding about THE LONG WAY HOME: the regime ruling
Earth in that book, the Technon, is NOT that bad. It compares favorably
to many actually existing regimes in our real world.
It's
my belief that what matters is whether a government rules not too
intolerably badly, more or less respects the rights of all its people,
and accepts limitations on its powers, not what form it has. If a
republic or monarchy is accepted by its people as rightful and governs
not too badly, then I have to say that kind of government is legitimate
for that nation. Which means I disagree with dogmatists who rigidly
insist that only ONE kind of government is right for everybody, for
every nation. And Poul Anderson would agree with me as this additional
bit quoted from his letter of 8 May 1978 shows: "...I've long felt that
legitimacy is the basic problem of any government and demand ["insist"
might have been a better word, SMB] upon it. Legitimacy can have any
number of sources in different societies, such as tradition, religion,
or heredity; in our country [the USA], the Declaration [of
Independence] and the Preamble [to the US Constitution] spell out quite
explicitly the basis on which the government claims its own rights.
But what does one do when this set of principles is no longer taken into
account? I doubt that much is possible except supporting whatever
strong-arm contender seems likeliest to give the people a breathing
spell."
In his letter of 31 December 1978, Poul
Anderson wrote to me discussing, among other things, responses to my
comments and questions in a letter I had written asking why so many in
the Flandry stories despised (somewhat unfairly, in my opinion) the
Terran Empire. Part of his reply was a summarizing of the American
theory of legitimacy in greater detail: "Perhaps the most succinct
formulation is in the Declaration of Independence--though it takes for
granted a contractual theory of legitimacy, whereas in fact governments
have claimed legitimacy on many different bases. The ultimate point is
that most people will accept their government as rightful, and be
prepared to make great sacrifices for it, as long as they perceive it as
serving--however imperfectly--the larger interests of its society.
When it ceases to do that, it loses all claim on their loyalty, and any
service it gets is mostly from expediency or, still more, fear."
I
discussed the Chinese Confucian theory of legitimacy, the Mandate of
Heaven, in a later letter (dated 18 November 1979) to Poul Anderson,
who responded (21 November 1979) that he was aware of the Chinese theory
of legitimacy. Anderson said that the Maoist conquest of mainland
China fitted the Mandate of Heaven pattern in many ways, despite the
Communists denying that and trying (for many years, SMB) to "scrub"
(PA's term) Confucius from the culture. He even wondered if, even then
(about 1979), the Mandate of Heaven theory was not yet dead. I
mentioned the Confucian theory of legitimacy to give another real world
example of a theory of rightful government. Only time will tell if the
old Chinese theory of legitimacy is dead or not.
Poul
Anderson was a masterful writer deeply knowledgeable not only in the
sciences but also in history and philosophy. All of which gives unusual
depth and nuance to his works. Who were some of the saints and
philosophers who helped to shape his beliefs about history? To answer
that question I'll again quote from his letter of 31 December 1978:
"Turning to less profound matters, you ask why my imaginary Terran
Empire is so despised by so many characters in the stories. To explain
in detail would require a book on the philosophy of history, with
references to authors as diverse as St. Thomas Aquinas, Rousseau, Locke,
Toynbee, Voegelin...well, the list alone would take longer to write
down than I have time for." Anderson would soon include the work of John
K. Hord as a major influence shaping his philosophy of history,
especially as regards how civilizations rose and fell (see Anderson's
article: "Concerning Future Histories," BULLETIN OF THE SCIENCE FICTION
WRITERS OF AMERICA, Fall 1979, pages 10-11).
(I have
argued with Poul Anderson that he was sometimes too hard on the Terran
Empire. I gave arguments in others of my letters for believing it was
not as bad as some of his characters thought it was. I wrote that
compared to many actually existing regimes, the Empire looks far better,
even very GOOD, compared to them.)
I must urge readers
not to be deceived by my ponderous commentary on some of the works of
Poul Anderson--they are FUN to read, well written, and with very
plausibly described backgrounds and character development. Anderson
never let his deep and learned interest in philosophy and history to get
in the way of what he modestly called his primary job: telling stories
readers will enjoy and want to read and reread.
Thanks, Sean. I liked this.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I would like to have explored further is "legitmacy as considered by whom, or how many?"
Is a government legitimate if those holding the power consider it so, or if a majority of the population thinks so, or if most people are too demoralized or exhausted to consider alternatives, or by default because every alternative is less legitimate?
Cheers,
KH
Kaor, Keith!
ReplyDeleteI would say a gov't is considered legitimate if both governors and governed BELIEVES that to be the case. At least by a majority.
If, because of civil wars, internal chaos, the havoc lefty by foreign invasions, etc., a people or nation has become demoralized and exhausted, then it's very likely the old regime, whether or not it has collapsed, has lost all or most of its legitimacy. The conditions would be ripe for a new gov't, of whatever form, to come to power and strive to win legitimacy. Above all, at a minimum, such a regime needs to preserve internal peace and defend against outside enemies. If successful it has a chance of becoming legitimate.
Sean