The Chilly Mist of Sovereignty

It has been a couple years since I have had a direct window into the inner workings of tools of sovereignty in an emerging market country. But I had the opportunity again this month, and I am as convicted as ever about the "commercial" nature of the enterprise. I find it remarkable how, in every country, there are folks who are instinctively good at grabbing and pulling the levers of sovereign power. No matter how poor, how small, or how newly-emerged from sectarian violence a country, such people exist there, and they make it to the halls of government. They know how to dress, how to speak judiciously, how to demonstrate control over their subordinates - how to exude power. They generally also master the language of serving the best interests of their constituents.

In many places, however, they also know something else. They know how to work behind this imagery in a relentless pursuit of personal or business enrichment. While the public facade is all about subjects that would play well in any IMF consultation, UN General Assembly session, or press conference, discussions behind the scenes can quickly turn quite concretely to the subject of the personal or business "take" for the minister or other official in question. Of course, there should be no surprise in any of that behavior. This kind of "corruption" (as it is termed in the west) is all too-well understood. But seeing it up close and personal can be quite a shock, no matter how many times one has been through it before. It is very easy to become wrapped up in the language of helping a poor population, and considering what can be done legitimately to advance its health, education, and general welfare. Perhaps it is the heat of that excitement which exacerbates the shocking chill of the next part of the discussion. And, in my experience, an unwillingness to engage the chillier topic usually prevents any role in the warmer work.

I harbor no criticism, either of the system that creates the officials who behave this way, or of the system that has molded my thinking and that causes my reactions. I see vast numbers of people suffering deeply under both systems. And I see stark enrichment at the "top" of both systems. I suppose what I lament most is the persistence of the inaccurate mythology about sovereignty. It is fundamentally not about helping others; it is fundamentally about helping ones' self to the national cookie jar, whatever its size or contents, limited only by the strength of domestic political organization. Of course, I would prefer things to be different, and I would welcome global leadership that would work in practical ways to effect change. But until we at least openly recognize the current reality, change will never be possible.

Sovereignty's Dirty Laundry

Have you seen the excerpt from J.M. Coetzee's new novel, Diary of a Bad Year, which is forthcoming in January 2008? Pretty interesting stuff. I have to confess as somebody who does not read a lot of novels that the format is a bit confusing to me. Large swaths of non-fictional observations are interspersed with short bursts from a fictional exchange in a laundry room. I could not connect all the dots, although the novelty was captivating.

Mostly, what strikes me about the excerpt is the collection of observations about what the state is, how it is established, and how it evolves. At bottom, Mr. Coetzee observes that most of us are born into a territory where a state has long asserted sovereignty, so the state's structure is hard-wired into our psyche and our behavior. The concept of removing the state (or, I imagine he would agree, drastically altering it) is not something that occurs to most folks or that we would be capable of achieving in any event. "It is what it is", and we are generally content with the marginal tools available to us for effecting marginal change.

These tools include the (false) choices presented in elections - candidate A v. candidate B. We have very little say in which candidates are presented to us, we have even less ability to provide a fair shake in the elections to a candidate C, and we have almost zero ability to drive toward something completely different (e.g., a new form of government, or no government at all).

Even more insightful I think are Coetzee's comments about how a state is born. He cites to the Kurosawan movie "The Seven Samurai", in which a population accepts the samurai's services in ousting a harmful group of bandits who were demanding excessive tribute. Once the samurai succeed, they then offer to serve as the new "protectors" of the population for a price. The population declines their offer, and the samurai leave. I am not sure what happens after that - I have not seen the movie. But the text Coetzee uses at this point in the excerpt is very insightful:

"The Kurosawan story of the origin of the state is still played out in our times in Africa, where gangs of armed men grab power—that is to say, annex the national treasury and the mechanisms of taxing the population—do away with their rivals, and proclaim Year One. Though these African military gangs are often no larger or more powerful than the organized criminal gangs of Asia or Eastern Europe, their activities are respectfully covered in the media—even the Western media —under the heading of politics (world affairs) rather than crime."

I like to consider this subject globally as something of a spectrum that includes both politics and crime. Certainly, there are similarities between (legitimate) governments and armed gangs. Both are groups that provide protection to a population in exchange for a fee, and both maintain power through a combination of superior weapons and mythology (i.e., nationalism, loyalty, fear of outside evil forces). It is a spectrum I have long wrestled with, and I am gratified by Coetzee's text. I look forward to reading the full book next year.

Technology of Sovereignty

Everything changes, nothing can remain the same for long if it is to succeed for any extended period. Today, I was in Philadelphia's museum dedicated to the Constitution of the United States. The Queen of England was a few hundred miles away, visiting Jamestown, the first English colony in North America. Seems like the day might expose something about how sovereignty has been evolving and succeeding near the North Atlantic ocean in the past few hundred years.

Well, in Philly, I was reminded of the roots of American independence - largely in the goal of the inhabitants of the colonies to keep more of the monetary fruits of their labors onshore, as opposed to sending them to the English Crown. I was reminded of the honorable goal of establishing a new continental government whose powers minimally trampled on the fundamental human rights of the governed, instead of taxing them without regard to taxpayer views. The technology of sovereignty was seen as advancing in the name of that goal, through a careful separation of sovereign powers so as to minimize the concentration and potential abuse of such power by one mind or one political party.

Those developments of course succeeded only in spite of powerful and fiery opposition from England. But the Queen today reaffirmed the close kinship and mutual respect that subsists between England and the United States. The US Vice President wholeheartedly agreed. Against the trappings of apparently deep policy and military cooperation between the two sovereigns today, the platitudes do not seem worth much ink.

But are we missing something, both in the development of sovereignty as well as in how that development is perceived and reported? Could it be that England's 18th century (and current?) over-stretched view of the extent of its sovereignty has become the current bad habit of the US Government? Not that the US is "taxing without representation" in the same way. But could the US be assuming, even when it might be incorrect, that its means, power, and influence are always beneficial for foreign lands?

Those who were present with the Queen today refrained from using the word "celebration" in order to respect the sorrow of the lost lives of the native Americans whose fate was controlled by the commercial and political machinations of the (largely) English settlers. Today's event was therefore instead termed a "commemoration", and I do not think the Vice President's office protested this nomenclature. But I remain discouraged. I doubt the Vice President (or others in his administration) truly appreciates that the US is now widely seen as the globe's current abuser of sovereign power. That revolutionary forces are arrayed against the US, and its Boston Tea Party mythology. And that the pride amongst those so arrayed runs as deep as it did among the colonials who defeated the English in North America after declaring independence.

I'd like to think that these tensions will be ancient history several hundred years hence, when there could be a Jamestown-style back-patting session amongst former enemies. But there may have to be another US Constitution-style upheaval in the management and constraint of sovereign power if the road to that session is to be paved.

"Corrupt" - "Altered from the Model" or "Morally Depraved"?

Caution: if you believe that Western means of government are the best, you will likely find this post patronizing.

China is often said to be corrupt. It is widely agreed that unpublished and therefore unpredictable fees - bribes - must often be paid to government officials if businesses wish to obtain results (e.g., licences, concessions, approvals, etc.). There are laws against this kind of behavior, within China, in the USA, and elsewhere. And violation of these laws in practice is certainly an alteration from the model.

But is it morally depraved? And could the answer to the latter question depend on the culture from which one comes? If one is willing to consider that sovereignty is a commercial enterprise, then how could one consider that a government official - say, one in charge of a particular agency whose approval is needed - should not be able to charge whatever price for the requested approval that the prevalent conditions will bear? In fact, that is just how things have long been viewed and worked in many parts of the world.

But, Western minds generally consider that sovereignty is not a commercial enterprise (query what it is then), and they elevate governments to a different plane. A plane where it is somehow morally depraved to demand a market-clearing price for a requested approval or other service. The best argument that occurs to me for this position is that the government has a kind of monopoly - it sets the requirements and also administers them, and it should not be able to command such concentrated power without published constraint. It is for this reason that no self-respecting Western society would countenance anything close to such a concentration of power in commercial markets, aside perhaps from the odd minor exception like the energy industry or the defense industry.

When the WTO joined the PRC, it took on a cultural integration project, and mutual understanding of longstanding business and bureaucratic attitudes and practices is critical - in both directions - if the team-up is going to work. The PRC states that it wants to tackle "corruption" in the Western sense, though I doubt the Chinese have attributed a "morally depraved" aspect to their definition. As we should well understand by now, that tackling process will evolve very slowly, growing out of the previous system. To expect sudden change to the Western model is silly. And to label thousands of years of customs as "morally depraved" is not constructive.

Let the People Divide Themselves

Everybody except maybe the Bush administration is drowning in the seemingly endless deluge of stories about death and destruction in Iraq. (Fortunately for Bush, there is Justice to worry about.) But when does it become acceptable for those in power to ask if we have been looking at the problem the wrong way? The US Government and the US media clearly define success by whether there is peace within the post-colonial borders. "Can we avoid all-out civil war?"

When do we consider, however, that the West's historical division of the region by borders drawn on a map may have been at the root of the current issues? The West wants folks the world over to be excited by, and loyal to, a map and a flag (and a finance ministry and a UN seat), just the way the West has been since Westphalia. Is it possible, however, that other regions of the world may naturally prefer to divide themselves differently? That there may be other measures - say religious, business, or familial - that other people prefer to consider in determining who is "one of us"?

By introducing wealth along with its means for dividing, the West has enticed people everywhere to adopt, or at least to appear to adopt, the legitimacy of the Western style of division. But how many deaths will it take before we consider that the world may not yet have truly bought the West's global map? That systems empowered by Western wealth will break down, and when that happens, people's innate means for division will re-awaken, often wreaking havoc after having been suppressed and supplanted? I say until we wrestle thoroughly with this possibility, we will never even understand the problems, much less commence a successful solution in Iraq.