While going about my business in the 2020s, I am often reminded of the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s rant – truly one of the greatest ever committed to paper – on the subject of being governed:
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolised, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
What is interesting about this passage is that it is not so much the indoctrination, fleecing, clubbing, choking, etc., that gets Proudhon’s goat. Those things are bad enough, of course. But what really galls him is that the people doing it are so patently undeserving of occupying any position of authority. It’s one thing to be spied upon, drilled, commanded, abused, ridiculed and so on if the people doing it are paragons of excellence and have an impeccably rational justification for behaving as they do. It is quite another when these ‘creatures’ lack any wisdom or virtue – when they have so self-evidently attained their positions merely through having the right face, the right connections, and the right views, and from jumping through the right hoops and avoiding causing trouble.
This is the position in which we find ourselves in 2023 – our lives administered in ever more minute detail, and in ever more authoritarian ways, by people who have never really achieved much at all beyond playing the system and making the most of the strong hand which they have been dealt by circumstance (well-off parents; good school; good exam grades; good university and so on). We don’t need to name names: we can all think of a long list of examples of this kind of ‘creature’ and the insolence that they embody in imagining that they have earned any sort of right to impose on society a vision of how to live.
As in many things, this brings us back to Machiavelli. In the greeting to Zanobi Buondelmonti and Cosimo Rucellai with which he introduces his Discourses, Machiavelli gives some very good general advice: “To judge aright,” he says, “One should esteem men because they are generous, not because they have the power to be generous; and in like manner, should admire those who know how to govern a kingdom, not those who, without knowing how, actually govern one.” Is there more to the matter than this? Political philosophy, and political science, should really boil down to the question of knowing how to actually govern, but so frequently comes down to a whole host of other tangential or immaterial concerns. What Machiavelli makes absolutely clear in this one remark is that there is often a huge gulf in quality between those who occupy positions of authority, and those who should; and “knowing how to actually govern” must by implication be the focus of much more of our attention in determining who should end up being in charge.
Machiavelli’s position – contrary to popular myth – was that it was more preferable for the populace to govern than a “prince”. This is simply because, as Machiavelli reminds us, “all do wrong”. Given the choice between republican rule (meaning self-governing rule by the people) and that of a prince (meaning rule by one man), the response is therefore obvious – individual members of the populace may do wrong but, in doing so, affect little; but when a prince does wrong, the consequences can be extremely grave. Put another way, power is best dispersed as much as possible via the ‘wisdom of crowds’, and concentrated power is best avoided (although there may be exceptional circumstances, such as war, where it is necessary).
Our societies have, it seems, chosen to adopt almost a diametrically opposite position to that advocated by Machiavelli. Our elites increasingly seem to believe that power is best concentrated within a relatively small group of ‘high information’ experts who can be trusted much more than the populace can to make the right decisions. Rather than accepting that ‘all do wrong’, they tend to take the view that actually it is the populace who tend to do wrong and the expert class who do right, and it is therefore best for all concerned if society is run along essentially technocratic lines. Thus we inhabit polities that much more closely resemble principalities than republics – governed by a relatively small ‘princely’ group who make decisions on our behalf.
Why has this happened?
At the centre of Machiavelli’s answer would I think be the concept of virtù, often mistranslated as ‘virtue’, but really more properly understood as something akin to ‘virtuosity’ or excellence. One who has virtù is one who has initiative, toughness, fortitude, discipline and competence – one who, in short, is capable of governing his or her own affairs in most circumstances. For Machiavelli, the ideal circumstance was one in which this quality was widespread among the populace. In such circumstances, where there is a robust citizenry imbued with virtù, society more or less runs itself as a self-governing republic; all it needs is a set of laws of general application in order to keep the peace and it will be self-sustaining. People will in short solve their problems for themselves, or in cooperation with others.
It follows that in circumstances in which the population lacks virtù, it may be appropriate for a ‘prince’ to rule (with the ultimate aim, Machiavelli makes clear, of restoring the conditions of a republic). This is not ideal, but may be necessary; the trite analogy would be the ‘prince-like’ rule of the Allies in occupied Germany after WWII, aimed at allowing virtù to flourish where it had been stamped out.
What Machiavelli does not spell out for the reader, but what I think he must surely have meant to imply, was therefore a theory of the circumstances in which ‘princely rule’ will arise, and particularly how it will emerge in what was previously a republic. In short, this will happen where those who are in positions of authority convince themselves that the population as a whole lacks virtù and that there is therefore a necessity for the experts to take charge. Since the population is incapable of self-government it is thus unfit for republican rule, and therefore the ‘princes’, who themselves alone embody virtù, have to put themselves in the driving seat.
Machiavelli therefore gives us a sensible theory for explaining how republics are corrupted into principalities: it may happen through force or revolution, but it is much more likely to be the case that it takes place when those who are in positions of power and influence decide for themselves that ordinary people lack virtù and that a group of technocrats must call the shots.
Does this not aptly describe our present predicament? A proliferating ‘new elite’ of overqualified, overeducated men and women who were born into relative privilege, did well in good schools and then at university, and who have been told all the way through life how clever and disciplined and wonderful they are, taking it upon themselves to boss around a population comprising people who they consider to be ignorant, stupid and incapable? This basic formula plays out all around us – from the lockdowns to ‘Net Zero’ to sugar taxes to EDI/DEI initiatives. At every turn we are treated as though we lack the necessary virtù, and need a cabal of princes to make sure we do the right thing.
In closing, of course, all that is needed is to connect the dots back to Proudhon. The manner in which we are governed, and its underlying rationale, is increasingly prince-like. It should hardly surprise us, then, that we are so poorly governed. The point bears belabouring: “it is beyond question that it is only in republics that the common good is looked to properly in that all that promotes it is carried out; [and] the opposite happens where there is a prince”. Where power is dispersed, good will follow. Where it is concentrated, there will be decline. There is nothing much more to add: those who ‘know how to actually govern’ are we, the people, ourselves, and we should expect bad results when this basic truth is forgotten.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. This article was first published on his substack News from Uncibal, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
What gets my goat is not that so many of my fellow citizens seem to want to be over-governed, but they want me to be over-governed too.
They think we need it because we keep making the wrong decisions and have opinions that aren’t ‘correct’.
They are also told of challenges that are easily far too big for one man to solve, like Covid and Climate Change. Although why they imagine that politicians who have never solved any problem that they have ever been faced with, should suddenly become competent enough to fix the most complex and interdependent systems like our climate, beggars belief…
“They think we need it because we keep making the wrong decisions and have opinions that aren’t ‘correct’.” That’s certainly the way the governing elite think, but it seems like my neighbours not only want to be told what to do but are outraged when I don’t want to be told what to do – a trivial example would be wearing seatbelts, or less trivial not observing “social distancing” during “covid”.
I agree it beggars belief that people think politicians have “solutions” to challenges that have proved insoluble since time immemorial, or indeed can control the weather or a virus, or indeed that people believe politicians have our best interests at heart.
I think you have to factor in that a lot of people are stupid…
Indeed – stupid and petty
Stupid, petty and astonishingly ignorant.
But have you considered the possibility that the majority of the members of our species might not actually be conscious? That is, they really are NPCs.
A lot of them seem pretty weird to me, yes.
The problem is that 50% of people are of less than average intelligence.
What is average intelligence in the UK in 2023?
100 years ago it was probably still around 100, but since then we’ve had the welfare state, which funds morons to breed like rabbits whilst taxing bright people out of having children, and mass immigration.
That’s a fair view, although I am unsure of how much it affects the absolute numbers. By definition there is a bell curve distribution, if that were skewed then it would point to something else happening that is probably best not to think about.
This has been facilitated and coordinated around an international global cabal that have brought financial interests together with the political classes across the globe bound by a diabolical set of quasi religious beliefs on the multiple crises that are supposedly imminent (although often Wuhan/Ukraine manufactured) around climate change hysteria, cybersecurity threats, misinformation, the clutch of bogus victim ideologies and soon to come global debt crisis.
From this, at a deeper level, the policies that are brought forward to address these so called crises are the very steps needed to create more serious crises, which have already pre-planned solutions. Throughout the linkage of international capital networks joined to massive state sponsored ‘initiatives’ designed to draw from government/taxpayer debts to maintain the crony capitalistic networks and enrich them while ensuring that these groomed politicos are always assured a cushy job at a think tank even when they fall from grace in return for zealously carrying out the crusades at all human and societal costs.
Finally, a fake consensus is created on fake controlled news media with fake science drummed into the general populace through globalist funded think tanks pushing legislation at all levels of national government all across the globe that never or rarely get to see a democratic vote.
In South Africa the ANC doesn’t cry freedom. It’s bringing on ever more tyranny. A prototype for the rest of the world.
Latest leaflet
To be fair it didn’t happen all at once it crept up on people. And as Kundera said, the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory over forgetting. There has been so much disruption to our cognition in recent times and an ever more refined attack on the human will. A hundred years of a scientifically crafted propaganda model. What does ‘cyber’ mean in Greek? It means the helmsman. If you want to know the desired result then it is simply complete control over the human will.
The political parties corrupted the republics.
The forefathers and founders were already aware of that danger and many opposed democracy and elections because they were actually ideas of the aristocracy to ensure the continued rule of that aristocracy through the backdoor.
Their solution in the US was ‘overrepresentation’ aka 1 representative per 15k people, which should have led to more independent candidates and a limit to those parties power.
Comparing toda’ys Canada with the US, for example, where there is a significant rep/people divergence though not on the basis of those 15k in the US, still suggests that that also was an illusion.
As such, there remains only one solution for democracies and republics to this, actually the original one: sortition.
Fat chance, I know.
Worth reading in that context:
“When it comes to the current crop of politicians in the Western world, many of them seem to have mediocrity inscribed on their faces.
By such, I do not mean that they make mistakes. Everyone does that. I mean that they look as though they lack the raw capacity to think properly. Perhaps even worse, they also look characterless, as if they had experienced nothing, or might as well have done so for all the trace experience has left on their faces. These do not even rise to the level of malignity or low cunning; they somehow convey the prolonged consumption of meals they have never had to pay for. When they smile, there is something triumphant in their expression, as if they were subliminally aware that they had triumphed in life without having fully deserved to do so.
The one characteristic that they have, however, is ambition. They are mediocre, not particularly intelligent, and characterless; but they are ravenously ambitious. Ambition, rationalized by supposed goodness, takes up all the mental space that should be occupied by other traits, thoughts, and desires. They are the kind of people who can endure any amount of boredom at a meeting, so long as it advances their career.”
https://www.takimag.com/article/for-goodness-sake/
In Germany, the current top brass is certainly not overeducated, but seriously and most officially undereducated and dumb- and extremely ambitious and authoritarian, of course.
They fit TD’s description to a T.
So maybe, they are already a step ahead and a forebearance of what’s soon to come in the UK as well in that regard.
There is no way out of this predicament either by gradual or revolutionary means. The system itself is designed in such a way that it will continue to sponge way past its redundancy. This is why our times call for optimism Just holding the flame regardlesss, despite pessimism of the intellect there is a deeper optiism of the spirit. Just holding the flame regardless. This is what is going to be about in the time to come.
Unless we get a major intervening event in the next few months which sorts out the wheat from the chaff then we will be pulled blindly into a ruthless eugenics future.Because the real wheat lies in a place that the evil can never comprehend. The global catastrophe to come might seem frightening but the alternative would be even worse and thus it has to come.We can’t say anything about who might survive or perish. As long as you have a good time and establish good vibes with your neighbours then lots of good stuff will follow.
Excellent discussion of why we find ourselves so badly governed
But where is part deux?
How we correct this?
Is monarchy or a benevolent dictator the only solution?
I reckon if we paid a million bucks salary to an MP the quality would improve drastically and sole the problem.
But ain’t gonna happen
We need a real democracy, which requires a complete separation of the legislature and the executive and a second house appointed through sortition.
Random chance should always be better than self-selection.
There are discussions amongst overseas intelligence agencies and they conclude that in Th UK the populaton is at present unable to extricate itself from its situation without outside assistance.
This is completely wrong.
The people that govern us aren’t especially incompetent.
There is no one smart enough to govern everyone competently. Anyone who tries will look incompetent.
That is what society just doesn’t want to acknowledge. People seem to think its just a matter of getting the right people.
No. The task is impossible. Society is too complex. Only the free exchange between individuals works.
I’m pleased to see that someone else understands how it’s supposed to work.
F off, get a life
Certainly no one wants to be governed by “half wits”, but the best government is the one that governs the least. Today all over the western world we have governments that govern the most. All bureaucracies have this tendency to grow and grab more and more power. But here is the classic example of a “half wit” in government. ——The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero Grant Schapps was asked on GB News if heat pumps are any good. ——–here was his reply— “I don’t know, but I am having one fitted in my house soon, so I will find out” ———-Are you kidding me? Him and his silly ideology motivated government want to get rid of our fantastic gas central heating and put iN a heat pump at huge expense and clutter but do don’t know if they are any good? Is he insane? Maybe, but for sure he is a total “half wit”—-But he isn’t alone. The entire political class approved this Net Aero absurdity with no questions asked ———–HALF WITS.
Being only slightly frivolous, I blame the BBC, Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell. The BBC (and other mainstream TV to be fair) endlessly pose the question: “Well minister, what are the government doing about xyz). A feature of the early Tony Blair years was that New Labour would instantly form a policy on whatever slight or irrelevant issue was the top story of the day. And so government grew and grew and grew. Of course, it goes without saying that this fits nicely with the overall new world order agenda.
A variant on the quote attributed to William Penn is that we must be governed by God, or, by God, we will be governed.