Beyond the Modern Nation State

Beyond the Modern Nation State
China Post Editorial
by Bevin Chu
May 20, 2009

"What we may be witnessing is ... the end of history as such ... the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."
-- Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History?"

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama thinks Western liberal democracy is the final form of human government.

If Fukuyama is right, then mankind is in serious trouble. Because Fukuyama's "final form of human government," the modern nation state, just isn't working.

Fortunately Fukuyama is wrong. Western liberal democracy is not the final form of human government. Therefore hope for another, far better form of human government remains. That's the good news.

The bad news is that most modern intellectuals, including intellectuals on Taiwan across the Blue/Green political spectrum, have swallowed Fukuyama's fairy tale about the modern nation state, lock, stock, and barrel.

These intellectuals never tire of citing Samuel Huntington's "The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century." They never tire of gloating over "Taiwan's second peaceful regime change." They never tire of praising "Taiwan's increasingly mature democracy."

But just listen to these same intellectuals wring their hands over "zheng dang e dou," and one realizes that their monotonous laments about "vicious partisan conflict" directly contradict their ringing affirmations of the modern nation state.

Instead of reading Huntington, these intellectuals should have read James Madison, fourth President of the United States and Father of the Constitution, who predicted that democracy would usher in a "spectacle of turbulence and contention ... incompatible with personal security or the rights of property."

Why doesn't the modern nation state work? Why has the "deepening of democracy on Taiwan" not ushered in lasting tranquility and harmony, but instead endless turbulence and contention?

The answer is simple. Because the modern nation state is a "bellum omnium contra omnes," or "war of all against all."

Thomas Hobbes argued that life without government, in a state of nature, inevitably leads to conflict, a "bellum omnium contra omnes," or "war of all against all." Therefore peoples' lives in the absence of government were "nasty, brutish, and short."

To escape that conflict, individuals ceded their natural rights to the government in exchange for protection. Any injustices perpetrated by the government must be accepted as the price of that protection.

But Hobbes, like Huntington and Fukuyama after him, got it wrong. Life in the absence of the modern nation state was not a bellum omnium contra omnes. Life under the thumb of the modern nation state is a bellum omnium contra omnes. Life under the modern nation state is a war of all against all because the modern nation state is a perpetrator of injustice.

Peace is often defined as the absence of conflict. But it would be more precise to define it as the absence of injustice. This is of course the genesis of the political slogan, "No justice, no peace!"

The modern nation state is the instigator and perpetuator of the war of all against all, because it is a perpetrator of injustice. It is a perpetrator of injustice because it "robs Peter to pay Paul." It robs Peter to pay Paul because it is endeavoring to re-engineer society. It is endeavoring to re-engineer society because it has exceeded is original charter, which was merely to defend against aggression.

Because the modern nation state is endeavoring to re-engineer society, and not merely to defend against aggression, it wields far too much power. This power makes the modern nation state a constant threat to all its citizens, a Sword of Damocles suspended over every citizen's head.

Not surprisingly, every political gang aspires to wield this power. Every political gang reasons, "If only my gang can seize control of this power, then we will be safe." This is why both the Blue Camp and the Green Camp equate election defeats with death sentences. More importantly, this is why every Tom, Dick, and Harry is determined to establish his own sovereign and independent nation state.

Blue Camp constitutional republicans, to their credit, attempt to limit this coercion. Republics constitutionally limit the modern nation state's authority to purely defensive functions.

Green Camp "champions of democracy," to their discredit, make no attempt to limit this coercion. Champions of democracy believe the modern nation state is well within its rights to coerce individuals, as long as it performs certain rituals as "free and fair" elections, plebiscites, and referenda. Champions of democracy have no objection to coercion. They merely want their turn at doing the coercing.

How can mankind minimize the injustices inherent within the modern nation state? More importantly, how can mankind transcend nationalism? A good first step would be to repudiate democracy and reaffirm constitutional republicanism.