We have the last of the books of a series of early history. Origins of political order is a very long and detailed book. Usually, long books repeat and examine the point from many sides, but not this one. I feel I got a lot out of the book. I'm writing the blog post, and there are so many things that I know I'm skipping. I remember more than from an average book. However, if you are not reading serious nonfiction, it might be quite a lot.
The book asks why democracy appeared in Europe and how it happened. It argues that functional democracy is not a natural process where all societies eventually converge.
There are different ways how to organize society. Some ideas make sense but don't work well in reality. On the other hand, some practices that we see as inhuman work. The book explores the underlying ideas for a good society (this is a society that is rich, equal, and free). We now think the best system is a democracy, but even in Europe, most democracies were poorly designed and created bad states.
I'll first go through some civilizations that had different approaches. From them, we will see some mistakes that they made. Then, I'll show what English (and Americans afterward) made right. Fukuyama argues that English democracy is the correct root of democracy. This democracy eventually spread around the West.
The integration of Chinese society was long and hard. There were a lot of small kingdoms that eventually united. Chinese state had no competing kingdom that would force it to change. If the emperor was strong, he could impose his will everywhere.
In China, the emperor was absolutist. Most of the time, he surrounded himself with the court selected based on abilities and not birth.
It was one of the struggles of Chinese society: elites (clans) wanted to ensure a good life for their children. Emperor wanted to get the ablest bureaucrats. It led to clashes between elites and emperors.
An important concept in China is the Mandate of Heaven. If the people are living well, the emperor stays in power (even if he or she is a tyrant). If the people are hungry, the Mandate of Heaven justifies the uprising. That was the only check on the emperor, not tyranny but hunger.
In history, China was often extreme. Most of the time, life for the Chinese was great. But there were some interruptions of terror either from an oppressive emperor or civil war. China is an example of a strong state and a strong emperor without religion mitigating it. We can see the benefits and problems.
In India, religion prescribes exact duties for everyone. A person cannot deviate and try anything else. The caste system created stability. On the other hand, there was no social mobility and no progress.
In that sense, India is directly opposite to China. In China, the emperor managed everything. India was fragmented all the time, and nobody was in charge.
Throughout history, even India's strongest empires were weak and disintegrated quickly. India never militarily expanded and lost many times. On the other hand, religion provided at least some rights to all people.
Ottomans (ruling Turkey and around) had the most unusual solution to the problem of getting the most competent people to lead a country. The Mamluks ruled Egypt and used a similar system. The hereditary sultan managed the empire and used slaves (Jannisaries) as his administrators. The slaves were young Christian boys captured in the Balkans. Ottomans hunted for the best to take to Istambul.
The process was not voluntary but also was not extremely tragic. The boys learned Muslim traditions and had to serve in the army.
If the boys passed the education and army, they could hold high posts around the empire. This life was better than the life of an average peasant. Early Jannisaries couldn't have children: new slave boys took their place. Later, their children were not slaves, so they couldn't join the army and inherit their father's posts.
This system created resilient elites selected by objective criteria. All elites obeyed the sultan (strictly speaking, they were his slaves, so they had fewer rights than ordinary people). The rich people could focus on commerce instead of politics. It was a stable system until small changes and technological backwardness made it obsolete.
Ottoman rule treated the people of the empire well, especially Muslims. Religion protected them quite well. But the Ottoman Empire lasted only a short time compared to India and China, so we cannot say too much.
Religion was crucial in the development of democracy on multiple fronts. It championed counterintuitive axioms. Religion says that all people have souls and are equal in God's eyes.
Anywhere where religion was influential, people had some rights.
More subtly, in Europe, the church forbade cousin marriage. Before, the unit of society was the clan. People married within one family (usually cousins). They always had someone who took care of them. They were also selfish for their family. Clans decrease the cohesion in society: you can survive well if you cooperate only with your family.
In early Medieval Europe, the battles for investiture (who controls the church, pope, or king) were important from a philosophical point of view. The ruler wasn't absolutist over everything. There was a different power center.
The system in France and Spain now is a bit more Anglo-Saxonized. We can see the social dynamics better in Latin America, where it was exported.
In these societies, elites had power compared to commoners and the king. Commoners were taxed more than elites. It was easy to pass the wealth and positions to the children.
In Latin America, we see how Spain and France were in the past. High inflation and sometimes revolution, but the wealthy (farmers) stay on top. There are revolutions, but afterward, nothing changes.
Poland and Hungary were also similar. There were also institutes of democracy like a strong constitution or parliament. But at that time, the institutes served only the wealthy, so the state was almost paralyzed and couldn't afford to wage war.
There were a lot of things that went right for England. Thanks to geography, England was safer against invasion, and people could have more freedom.
Church dissolved the clans. Vikings brought the importance of freedom (and individualism). The Anglo-Saxon king was viewed less as a ruler and more as a judge or defender of commoners from oppression by elites. From the start, there was a rule of law that even the king had to follow. One reason was religion. The second reason was that the king was a hereditary judge (or ruler) chosen by consensus and tradition. (And how it happened exactly is not necessary. It is more important to know how people viewed it.)
In early history, the king's courts (judging) generated substantial revenues. It was better than the customary clan system, where the status of the victim influenced the decision. People accepted the king more easily.
The rich were more cooperative. In England, they paid more taxes than in Europe. Elites saw peasants as fellow men, not someone to exploit. The commoners had more power compared to the elites, which led to rights for everyone not only for nobles as in Poland or Hungary.
The English system respected private property (as opposed to more authoritative countries) and allowed it to be used productively.
The English had one more thing going for them: Common law. Common law makes people freer. They are not usually forbidden to do things that do not harm anyone. People viewed the law as created for them, not imposed from the top.
I loved the book. Read it if you can.
In USSR, only 4% of the farmed land was private. It accounted for 25% of the production.
The state is coldest of all cold monsters, said Nietzsche.