Rating Rome on Fukuyama's Ideals of Governance

[caesar novus]

Francis Fukuyama is a famous political scientist with a simple theory of ideal governance, as discussed in book/video http://www.booktv.org/Watch/12427/The+Origins+of+Political+Order+From+Prehuman+Times+to+the+French+Revolution.aspx . In summary, he looks for statehood, rule of law. and accountability.

 

He apparently rates Greece, Rome, and England lower than usual on the evolution of governance (England succeeded by a fluke), and rated institutions like ancient China, Ottoman empire, and medieval Catholic church higher than usual (barely missed ideals). He doesn't think democracy is always the best form of accountability (maybe stabbing Caesar or Caligula is as good as Greek voting?). He doesn't think bigger is better for statehood, altruism just has to extend beyond genetic kinship ties. And rule of law was normally religious because it has to absolutely overrule all political machinations.

 

I wonder if we can make a case to restore primacy to Rome using those same principles, maybe using the hook of Rome's boosting of the Catholic church. He saw the reforming pope Gregory7 as starting the return of rule of law to Europe (both on religious and secular tracks). A lot of it was done thru those odd celibacy rules which is also what Ottomans demanded from certain rulers. This promotes statehood when they have no children to subvert loyalty of the powerful to kin rather the greater state. Anyway, I wonder if we speculate that Constantine wanted the church to be in place partly to play the check and balance role it did in medieval politics?

 

BTW he points to early periods of Chinese history as having a great state, so-so accountibility, but lousy rule of law (no religious constraint on emperors). It all came together in England, but under such accidental conditions that it shouldn't be used as a recipe for developing countries. Leave democracy for last, get your state in order first (not so big as to merge conflicting values, such as Greek vs. Danish retirement practices?). Get a bulletproof rule of law before democracy. Don't dwell only on individual votes for accountability.

 

So would anyone like to non-cynically rate historical regimes on statehood, rule of law, accountability... eg:

England: high, high, high

China: high, low, medium

RomeRepublic: high, med, med

RomeEmpire: med, varied, med

Greece: ? ? ?

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

About Greece, I'd first say : there is no single united entity in Greece before the Roman Empire came and invaded it ! Thus one should not speak of Greece but of Athens, Sparta, Corinth, etc.

 

On statehood, most cities were probably low : administration was much less developped than in the roman empire (although not that far away from what did exist during the roman republican period).

 

On accountability, Athens should probably get a rather good rating, at least from the time of Pericles to the time of Philipp II of Macedonia. Every elected/nominated official had to give official accounts of his actions when he came out of office and could be prosecuted for those actions. In Sparta, the rating would probably be medium since the Kings were always controled by the Ephors, but the Ephors were close to immune.

 

On rule of law, I'd say that Athens would rate medium for while justice was easy to access (even for non-citizens), we have many cases of political abuse of the tribunals and justice worked also mainly for citizens and non-citizens of subject from the athenian empire's other cities had more difficulties to be heard. In Sparta I'd probably rate the rule of law as rather medium too.

 

Thus :

 

Athens : low - high - medium

Sparta : low - medium - medium

[caesar novus]

Athens : low - high - medium

Sparta : low - medium - medium

Thanks for the reality check on Athens. I think Fukuyama is too dismissive of Rome and England, maybe in a spirit of multicultural revisionism. I would like to revive the place of Rome using his own framework; he seems to leave room for interpretation based on the spirit of the rules rather than just literal. Surely the Roman republic was mostly a shining step forward in good governance and state building.

 

Oddly, he seems to applaud French revolution executions of aristocracy due to them always passing power and property to their children - can't we more appreciate the way England or the US reduced inherited power and turned loyalties toward the state or is that too stuffy and traditional? He praises accountability of ancient Chinese emperors (well, at least a couple) based on fuzzy notions of their morality rather than explicit procedures. However he does consider the current China situation as dangerously unaccountable, with possibility to go unstable with an unlucky change of rulers.

[Virgil61]

I haven't read Origins of the Political Order but for anyone who hasn't read him Fukuyama is a challenging thinker and a challenging read at times. His End of History and the Last Man is outstanding (and misunderstood).

 

His whole thing--or it used to be--was that liberal democracies (as in the old use of liberal; the western Anglo-American example of democratic government) are the evolutionary end of human government; no other more perfect model exists for humanity (as in Hegel's "End of History"). Looks like he's rethought--based on your post--his thoughts on liberal democracy being the natural end-state of human development. Whether you buy it or not he's an stimulating thinker.

 

I'll watch the full lecture in the link you gave, it should be interesting. I watched the opening and saw it was given at Politics and Prose bookstore in the DC area. Real first-rate authors, especially those in politics and history--are always giving talks there.

[Ursus]

His whole thing--or it used to be--was that liberal democracies (as in the old use of liberal; the western Anglo-American example of democratic government) are the evolutionary end of human government; no other more perfect model exists for humanity (as in Hegel's "End of History"). Looks like he's rethought--based on your post--his thoughts on liberal democracy being the natural end-state of human development. Whether you buy it or not he's an stimulating thinker.

 

I enjoyed reading Fukuyama back in '99 when I was a college senior. But even then I felt he was being overly optimistic or naive. I felt Samuel Huntingdon's "Clash of Civilizations" was the better prophecy.

 

I think in the years since, and in the aftermath of 9/11, Fukuyama more or less admitted he was wrong.

[abvgd]

The basis for his claim that the Chinese had an essentially modern state is IMHO very weak. His argument basically boils down to the Chinese having a strong monolithic central government (a concept that was neither applicable nor necessary nor desirable in the multi-cultural polis-based ancient Mediterranean and feudal medieval European spheres, with maybe the single exception of pharaonic Egypt) and to the existence of the meritocratic selection process for government officials as provided by the imperial examination system (however, he ignores the substantial practical limitations of this meritocracy).

 

At the same time, he does concede that imperial China unlike medieval Europe (I'd also add, unlike the Roman Republic/Empire which he completely ignores in the book) lacked proper (i.e. codified) rule of law and that imperial China also unlike medieval Europe (I'd also add, unlike the Roman Republic and classical Athens which like I said he completely ignores) lacked any check on the power of the ruler. As a side issue (though a very important one), he also concedes that China never developed a proper market economy (I'd also add that China never developed a proper scientific culture, which he fails to mention even though it's another equally important side issue).

 

Yet, despite acknowledging these important deficiencies in part or in whole, he is so enamoured by the bureaucratic apparatus of imperial China with its examination-based recruitment system (in reality only achievable for the precious few who could afford a very good education on their own, and this meritocracy was always subservient to the non-meritocratic nepotism of imperial eunuchs and concubines - and, of course, the almighty emperor himself) that he disregards everything else that he's mentioned, however briefly, and arbitrarily dubs imperial China as history's first modern state - a highly problematic conclusion, if you ask me!

 

As for Francis Fukuyama himself, he's obviously good at writing, summarizing and repackaging existing thoughts and ideas. However, as a theorist and thinker I'd say that he's quite shallow and unoriginal - often biased and incorrect in his conclusions. I'd nevertheless still recommend this book as a very approachable text on a usually very dry subject as long as you don't uncritically accept all his conclusions and leaps of logic (which, as you might have guessed, leaves a lot to be desired).

Edited January 17, 2012 by abvgd

[caldrail]

It occurs to me that Fukuyama likes a sense of order and to him a an apparently stable pyramid of responsibility and authority is his perfect ideal, thus he looks for societal models that conform to his requirements in terms of long term persistence. That however ignores the sociological aspect of human societies in which a stable, safe, and essentially unchanging situation causes that society to stagnate, to become oberly ritualistic and unable to cope with emergencies.

 

To defend the Roman world then is to point out that despite their traditional leanings, they were a ruthlessly competitive society and as a result, vigorous despite the occaisional chaos resulting from dynastic squabbles. Also, because a society stagnates without change, there's an element of dynamism that emerges from all this political plotting and bloodletting. In order for a Roman leader to survive, not only must he root out the conspirators, but also persuade the majority by one means or another that he's worth keeping on. Not quite democracy, but certainly the politicians weren't the only ones who decided who ran the Roman state.

 

Not a perfect society perhaps, especially since it was run like a gangland state. It was however one that had purpose, embraced change in the face of traditional values, and believed in itself.