Monday, November 10, 2008
Great Article on Civic Engagement by Lee Hamilton
It will hopefully be a rare thing that a blog post here consists solely of posting someone else's article. To be clear, I don't personally know Lee Hamilton (former Representative of Indiana from 1965 to 1999) nor did he give me any specific permission to copy this article. However, part of my objective in writing this blog is to search for articles that might educate us as to what it means to be part of an engaged citizenry. This article clearly qualifies as one to stir our minds.
The “Ten Commandments of Citizenship”
by Lee Hamilton
This presidential election, if you believe the polls and the rhetoric, is about change in Washington. Both candidates promise it. Voters clamor for it. It is the cause of the moment.
But I have news for you: Change in Washington won’t happen, and certainly can’t be sustained, without change in the country at large. For the point is not to overthrow the system. It’s to make it function properly.
Government does not fix itself. Only a citizenry that is engaged in our democracy to an extent far greater than in recent decades can help to heal our system. To get change in Washington, in other words, it has to begin with you.
Since being a responsible citizen takes commitment, here are some precepts to follow if you want to be effective — what I call the “Ten Commandments of Citizenship.”
Vote. This is the most basic step democracy asks of us. Don’t buy the argument that it doesn’t matter. Every election offers real choices about the direction we want our towns, states and country to take. By voting, you not only select the officials who will run the government, you suggest the direction that government policy should take and reaffirm your support for a representative democracy.
Be informed. To be a knowledgeable voter, you need to know what candidates actually stand for, not just what their ads or their opponents’ ads say. Read about the issues that confront your community and our nation as a whole. Our government simply does not work well if its citizens are ill-informed.
Communicate with your representatives. Representative democracy is a dialogue between elected officials and citizens — that dialogue lies at the heart of our system. Legislators and executives can’t do their job well if they don’t understand their constituents’ concerns, and we can’t understand them if we don’t know their views and why they hold them.
Participate in groups that share your views and can advance your interests. This one’s simple: In a democracy, people tend to be more effective when they work together rather than acting as individuals. You can be sure that almost every issue you care about has one or more organizations devoted to it. By joining and working with the ones you think best reflect your views, you amplify your beliefs and strengthen the dialogue of democracy.
Get involved locally to improve your community. You know more about your community’s strengths and weaknesses than anyone living outside it. Identify its problems and work to correct them. Involvement is the best antidote I know to cynicism.
Educate your family, and make sure that local schools are educating students, about their responsibilities as citizens. As a society, we’re not as good as we should be at encouraging young people to get involved in political life. Too many young people — and even many adults — do not understand how our government and political system work and why it is important for them to be contributing citizens.
Understand that we must work to build consensus in a huge, diverse country. In pretty much every way you can think of, ours is an astoundingly mixed nation of people, with wildly divergent views on most issues and a constantly growing population. This means we have to work through our differences not by hammering on the other side, but by bringing people together through the arts of dialogue, accommodation, compromise, and consensus-building.
Understand that our representative democracy works slowly. There’s a reason for this. It is so that all sides can be heard, and so that we avoid the costly mistakes produced by haste. Our Founders understood this 220 years ago, and it’s even more vital now, when issues are vastly more complex and the entire world is closely connected.
Understand that our system is not perfect, but has served the nation well. Democracy is a process designed to give people a voice in how they are governed. It’s not perfect — far too many people feel voiceless, and polls in recent years suggest that unsettling numbers believe the system is broken. And our system offers no guarantee that you’ll get what you want. Yet it is also true that it provides every individual an opportunity to be heard and to work to achieve his or her objectives, and it has served our nation well for over two centuries.
Understand that our system is not self-perpetuating; it demands our involvement to survive. Just because it has worked in the past does not mean we will have a free and successful country in the future. Lincoln’s challenge is still urgent: whether this nation so conceived can long endure. Being a good citizen isn’t something one does just for the heck of it; it’s critical to the success of our nation.
Lee Hamilton is director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Getting At the Origins of Civic Health
In the course of discussing civic health, it is important to define what we mean when we use the term “civic health.” Thus, I want to start a series of articles that seeks to understand the notion of civic health.
There are numerous contemporary definitions which all involve engagement of the citizenry in the political arts and societal improvements. I probably agree with those. In this article, however, I want to approach the subject in a more calculated and historical approach, thus deriving a definition that gets at the most basic element of an individual’s role in his or her society.
The Declaration of Independence Incorporates the Notion of a Social Contract
The Declaration of Independence incorporates the notion of a social contract between the citizenry and government. It describes government as an entity instituted “among men” in order to secure the “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” These unalienable rights are secured by governments, but are not actually created by governments. Instead they are “endowed” upon us “by [our] Creator.” Thus, they are natural rights and government instituted for the purpose of protecting them. The Declaration further holds that a government’s power is just when those powers are derived from the “consent of the governed” and consequently not just when derived from some means other than from the consent of the governed. Thus, as government has a purpose, namely to protect “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”“whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.”
By Nature, Humans Are in a State of War or Anarchy, and They Only Enter Into Social Contracts When They Believe Such Social Contracts Can Provide Peace and Safety
These concepts within the Declaration of Independence originate in part from Thomas Hobbes, who, in the Leviathan (1651), discussed the nature of the social contract between individuals and the government. In Hobbes’ articulation, absent a binding common power, men and women are in a natural state of war with each other.
(Today, we colloquially refer to this lawlessness as anarchy -- although people who refer to themselves as anarchists would insist that we are using the term improperly, and I hope to address this issue in a later essay.)
Thus, whether or not 2 individuals are engaging in actual physical fighting, they are still experiencing constant struggle, leading to continual fear and danger of violent death. Leviathan, XIII. In this most basic state of war or anarchy, people do not cooperate with each other unless as part of a scheme to overtake others. Instead, each individual sees themselves as having a right to every thing they can take, including another person’s body, and hence, in the state of war or anarchy, there is no security for any man or woman. Leviathan XIV.
As a result of these aspects of the state of war, the results of successful society, namely, culture of the earth, navigation, use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, commodious building, instruments of moving,… arts, letters, and society” are all absent. Leviathan, XIII.
Hobbes argues that free thoughtful people, looking to escape this anarchy and insecurity, endeavoring peace and safety, are thus willing to “lay down this right to all things” by transfer certain rights to the sovereign government in exchange for receiving peace and security. See Leviathan XIV.
Thus, they are only willing to transfer these rights if obtaining peace and security in exchange – as Hobbes writes: “a covenant not to defend myself from force is always void. For no man can transfer his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment.” Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, XIV (1651).
Thus, through the erection of a government with coercive power that can frighten others into obedience, one may feel he has acquired the universal rights he initially abandoned by entering into the covenant to be ruled by government. Leviathan, XV, (1651).
For a social contract to be successful, the participant must feel that in exchange for giving up their right to seem dominion over others, they are obtaining a certain preservation not otherwise available to him or her on his or her own.
As clarified above, a successful social contract may be said to provide the very peace and security that in the state of war or anarchy would require an enormous amount of power. Hobbes writes that “the final cause, or end, of men (who naturally love liberty and dominion over others), in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which we see them live in Commonwealths) is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war.” Thus, each man freely gives up certain rights to live in a commonwealth under the power of that commonwealth and its soveign. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, XVII, (1651).
Thus, because a man or woman would never give up his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment, it is essential that for a social contract to be successful, that the commonwealth be organized to provide citizens with the benefits of life that they bargained for. To make Hobbes’ point more succinctly, humans are naturally in a state of war, and to avoid the horrors of the state of war, enter into social contracts where they give up certain rights in order to live in peace and security. However, as humans by nature see themselves in a constant competition for resources in this world, they will not abandon their violent state of war, and will enter into it, unless they feel a sense of safety and security and reliance on the government in which they reside.
The Declaration of Independence Thus Envisions a Democratic Society Where Citizens See Their Cause of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness Being Advanced
I have no doubt that the authors of the Declaration had Hobbes’ analysis in mind when writing the Declaration, as the parallels are uncanny. For the authors of the Declaration, therefore, humans in the state of nature and war will continually seek and fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, under the Declaration, humans will not enter into a social contract that does not protect or advance these rights. For the Declaration, the “consent of the governed” necessary for a social contract to survive, is protected only through Democracy, as it states that when a government does not protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and is “destructive of these ends,” it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” The right of the people to alter or abolish a government can be protected only in a democratic government. It would otherwise be impossible for the people to exercise their right.
The Declaration further provides insight into how it views the relationship between the citizen and the government, by stating how the British government has committed “injuries and usurpations.” It is my view that each of these injuries and usurpations in the second half of the Declaration reveal and describe democratic elements of the social contract expected to apply in the United States of America.
Note that these rights are not individual rights per se. However, to the extent that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is only protected if the government is properly organized to so protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to operate consistent with the consent of the governed, one can consider the second half of the Declaration of Independence as reflecting what government mechanisms the American people have a right to to protect their life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Specifically, the rights mentioned include, but are not limited to: (1) a legal system binding on all, no exceptions, not even kings; (2) a legislature free to pass legislation of immediate and pressing importance without undue control by the executive; (3) rights of all people to representation in the legislature; (4) rights to anticipate where and when the legislature will meet; (5) rights for the representative bodies to be able to meet without fear of being dissolved by the executive; (6) rights of the people to have regular elections to elect representatives to the representative body; (7) a legal system that provides for, and does not obstruct, the naturalization of foreigners; (8) a judiciary (9) which is fair and independent of the executive; (10) a right that the executive will not institute offices and officers for improper and harassing purposes; (11) a right for the legislature to determine whether standing armies should exist in times of peace; (12) a right to have a civil control of the military; (13) a right to have no rulers other than those legally selected; (14) right not to have large bodies of armed troops among us; (15) a right to honest trials against lawbreakers; (16) a right to have a federal government engage in trade with others in the world; (17) a right not to be taxed without consent; (18) a right to trial by jury; (19) a right to be tried for only real offenses; and (20) a right not to be controlled by an arbitrary government having no set boundaries.
Our Discussion of Civic Health Should Be Influenced by the Declaration
As shown above, the Declaration of Independence applies the concept of Hobbes’ social contract to the population in America, and thus creates a vision of a government responsive to decisions of the citizenry. This responsiveness is described in the twenty-plus rights identified in the second half of the Declaration, thus providing for a government organized around the social contract so described.
Thus, it should not be ignored that each of the rights mentioned in the second half of the Declaration make participatory democracy more possible than had that right not been identified. However, like any constitution or law, the Declaration’s life cannot actually be in this legal language-- just as the soul of a person cannot be measured by the mere presence of his or her organs. That said, absent such functional organs, the soul simply cannot reside in this world, if at all. It is the same with the social contract described by Hobbes. Democracy and the striving of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot exist except within a body of laws and legal system that allows for it to live. Thus, the definition of civic health cannot be defined merely by the existence of a constitution within which life could exist, but by the existence, nay, the presence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thus, a discussion of civic health must always involve two realities. Just as the discussion of a person involves discussion of the (a)soul or spirit and the (b) body, the discussion of civic health must involve discussion of the soul—life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and body—the constitution and legal framework allowing for the life of democracy’s social contract.
There are numerous contemporary definitions which all involve engagement of the citizenry in the political arts and societal improvements. I probably agree with those. In this article, however, I want to approach the subject in a more calculated and historical approach, thus deriving a definition that gets at the most basic element of an individual’s role in his or her society.
The Declaration of Independence Incorporates the Notion of a Social Contract
The Declaration of Independence incorporates the notion of a social contract between the citizenry and government. It describes government as an entity instituted “among men” in order to secure the “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” These unalienable rights are secured by governments, but are not actually created by governments. Instead they are “endowed” upon us “by [our] Creator.” Thus, they are natural rights and government instituted for the purpose of protecting them. The Declaration further holds that a government’s power is just when those powers are derived from the “consent of the governed” and consequently not just when derived from some means other than from the consent of the governed. Thus, as government has a purpose, namely to protect “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”“whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.”
By Nature, Humans Are in a State of War or Anarchy, and They Only Enter Into Social Contracts When They Believe Such Social Contracts Can Provide Peace and Safety
These concepts within the Declaration of Independence originate in part from Thomas Hobbes, who, in the Leviathan (1651), discussed the nature of the social contract between individuals and the government. In Hobbes’ articulation, absent a binding common power, men and women are in a natural state of war with each other.
(Today, we colloquially refer to this lawlessness as anarchy -- although people who refer to themselves as anarchists would insist that we are using the term improperly, and I hope to address this issue in a later essay.)
Thus, whether or not 2 individuals are engaging in actual physical fighting, they are still experiencing constant struggle, leading to continual fear and danger of violent death. Leviathan, XIII. In this most basic state of war or anarchy, people do not cooperate with each other unless as part of a scheme to overtake others. Instead, each individual sees themselves as having a right to every thing they can take, including another person’s body, and hence, in the state of war or anarchy, there is no security for any man or woman. Leviathan XIV.
As a result of these aspects of the state of war, the results of successful society, namely, culture of the earth, navigation, use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, commodious building, instruments of moving,… arts, letters, and society” are all absent. Leviathan, XIII.
Hobbes argues that free thoughtful people, looking to escape this anarchy and insecurity, endeavoring peace and safety, are thus willing to “lay down this right to all things” by transfer certain rights to the sovereign government in exchange for receiving peace and security. See Leviathan XIV.
Thus, they are only willing to transfer these rights if obtaining peace and security in exchange – as Hobbes writes: “a covenant not to defend myself from force is always void. For no man can transfer his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment.” Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, XIV (1651).
Thus, through the erection of a government with coercive power that can frighten others into obedience, one may feel he has acquired the universal rights he initially abandoned by entering into the covenant to be ruled by government. Leviathan, XV, (1651).
For a social contract to be successful, the participant must feel that in exchange for giving up their right to seem dominion over others, they are obtaining a certain preservation not otherwise available to him or her on his or her own.
As clarified above, a successful social contract may be said to provide the very peace and security that in the state of war or anarchy would require an enormous amount of power. Hobbes writes that “the final cause, or end, of men (who naturally love liberty and dominion over others), in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which we see them live in Commonwealths) is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war.” Thus, each man freely gives up certain rights to live in a commonwealth under the power of that commonwealth and its soveign. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, XVII, (1651).
Thus, because a man or woman would never give up his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment, it is essential that for a social contract to be successful, that the commonwealth be organized to provide citizens with the benefits of life that they bargained for. To make Hobbes’ point more succinctly, humans are naturally in a state of war, and to avoid the horrors of the state of war, enter into social contracts where they give up certain rights in order to live in peace and security. However, as humans by nature see themselves in a constant competition for resources in this world, they will not abandon their violent state of war, and will enter into it, unless they feel a sense of safety and security and reliance on the government in which they reside.
The Declaration of Independence Thus Envisions a Democratic Society Where Citizens See Their Cause of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness Being Advanced
I have no doubt that the authors of the Declaration had Hobbes’ analysis in mind when writing the Declaration, as the parallels are uncanny. For the authors of the Declaration, therefore, humans in the state of nature and war will continually seek and fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, under the Declaration, humans will not enter into a social contract that does not protect or advance these rights. For the Declaration, the “consent of the governed” necessary for a social contract to survive, is protected only through Democracy, as it states that when a government does not protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and is “destructive of these ends,” it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” The right of the people to alter or abolish a government can be protected only in a democratic government. It would otherwise be impossible for the people to exercise their right.
The Declaration further provides insight into how it views the relationship between the citizen and the government, by stating how the British government has committed “injuries and usurpations.” It is my view that each of these injuries and usurpations in the second half of the Declaration reveal and describe democratic elements of the social contract expected to apply in the United States of America.
Note that these rights are not individual rights per se. However, to the extent that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is only protected if the government is properly organized to so protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to operate consistent with the consent of the governed, one can consider the second half of the Declaration of Independence as reflecting what government mechanisms the American people have a right to to protect their life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Specifically, the rights mentioned include, but are not limited to: (1) a legal system binding on all, no exceptions, not even kings; (2) a legislature free to pass legislation of immediate and pressing importance without undue control by the executive; (3) rights of all people to representation in the legislature; (4) rights to anticipate where and when the legislature will meet; (5) rights for the representative bodies to be able to meet without fear of being dissolved by the executive; (6) rights of the people to have regular elections to elect representatives to the representative body; (7) a legal system that provides for, and does not obstruct, the naturalization of foreigners; (8) a judiciary (9) which is fair and independent of the executive; (10) a right that the executive will not institute offices and officers for improper and harassing purposes; (11) a right for the legislature to determine whether standing armies should exist in times of peace; (12) a right to have a civil control of the military; (13) a right to have no rulers other than those legally selected; (14) right not to have large bodies of armed troops among us; (15) a right to honest trials against lawbreakers; (16) a right to have a federal government engage in trade with others in the world; (17) a right not to be taxed without consent; (18) a right to trial by jury; (19) a right to be tried for only real offenses; and (20) a right not to be controlled by an arbitrary government having no set boundaries.
Our Discussion of Civic Health Should Be Influenced by the Declaration
As shown above, the Declaration of Independence applies the concept of Hobbes’ social contract to the population in America, and thus creates a vision of a government responsive to decisions of the citizenry. This responsiveness is described in the twenty-plus rights identified in the second half of the Declaration, thus providing for a government organized around the social contract so described.
Thus, it should not be ignored that each of the rights mentioned in the second half of the Declaration make participatory democracy more possible than had that right not been identified. However, like any constitution or law, the Declaration’s life cannot actually be in this legal language-- just as the soul of a person cannot be measured by the mere presence of his or her organs. That said, absent such functional organs, the soul simply cannot reside in this world, if at all. It is the same with the social contract described by Hobbes. Democracy and the striving of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot exist except within a body of laws and legal system that allows for it to live. Thus, the definition of civic health cannot be defined merely by the existence of a constitution within which life could exist, but by the existence, nay, the presence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thus, a discussion of civic health must always involve two realities. Just as the discussion of a person involves discussion of the (a)soul or spirit and the (b) body, the discussion of civic health must involve discussion of the soul—life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and body—the constitution and legal framework allowing for the life of democracy’s social contract.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)