Making Sense of the Modern State

Edmond Grace, SJ

Issue 380, vol.95

Officials would then no longer resemble secrecy-bound initiates of some high strategy, shrouded in quasi-religious mystery (preventing, like the high-command’s circle in war-time, details of a campaign-strategy from falling into enemy hands) – rather, they would be freely unveiling for public discussion, aspects of strategic-planning.

This would help dispel any sense (on the public’s part) of mystification, or suspicion of obfuscation and deliberate exclusion. The elements of joined-up thinking in inter-agency planning would become apparent, and the workings of the state apparatus would appear less impenetrable. Instead of experiencing frustration, and alienation towards the organs of government, people would now feel themselves invited to participate. In colloquial terms, they would no longer be kept in the dark – but they would be “let in on” what is “going down” by those “in the know”. (Indeed, politicians and public servants would in turn be spared the concern and perplexity of their own perception that the ordinary citizen has grown disillusioned and disenchanted with the political process).

The perennial problem of those somehow left behind by the democratic process, was well-captured by American President, John Adams (George Washington’s successor). The epitome of “public happiness” and human thriving was (according to Adams) : going to town meetings to debate and decide matters of public concern – for, every human being has a desire “to be seen, heard, talked of, approved and respected by the people about him”. But slaves – and the poor and non-propertied (being wholly occupied with bare survival) – miss out on this : the poor man “is not disapproved or censored or reproached. He is only not seen. To be wholly overlooked and to know it are intolerable”.

For a democratic state, one always needed individuals who were not just ciphers but stake-holders. The ancient republics of Greece and Rome were small enough for everyone to know everyone who “mattered”. Montesquieu was also to contend that a citizenry remained conscious of itself – civilised – as long as commerce was still able to preserve that underpinning of reciprocal obligation arising from face-to-face bargaining.

But with the industrial revolution and mass-production, things changed : a mass enterprise was a faceless enterprise (however brave the efforts of labour-unions to curtail its excesses). It was, of course, at the behest of the labour movement that the state undertook responsibility for safety and for equality; but we have seen the state go on to take responsibility for consumer protection, urban development, the environment – so that it is today almost omni-competent…This is the modern monolith which needs to de-centralise and to dialogue, if it is to regain contact with each face in the crowd.

Edmond Grace, SJ is Director of the Democracy Project.