Modernity without liberty?

[Faeelin]

I recently finished Charlie Stross's Merchant PRinces, which were actually pretty fascinating when they weren't focused on his frothing hatred of America.

The characters end up sliding into an alternate timeline where the Hanoverians fled to America, and are in a cold war with Bourbon Europe. (Then a hot war).

But there's no democracy. New Britian is ruled by a strongly hereditary monarch, with some sort of parliament in place, but a weak one and a restricted Franchise. France is, ah, evil (and testing nuclear weapons in old England). The people who think democracy and liberty are viable are revolutionaries on the run, without a success to their name.

This raises an interesting question. Suppose the American Revolution gets crushed, and the French Revolution doesn't go off. The models of success and modernity for Europe, as they were before the Revolutions, are the absolutist states of the East; Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

But do people still want to give democracy a go? Or does everyone accept that society needs a king and gendarmes?

 

[Alex Richards]

It is, to put it bluntly, absolute bollocks. Democracy, even 18th/19th Century enlightenment democracy, did not spring fully formed from the American Revolution and spread to Europe by way of France. The colonies themselves already had elected governments (indeed this was part of the reason for the initial grievances) and that ties into a system in England of democratic powerful ruling institutions dating back to 1688 at least and which was firmly in control at this point. Not to mention that you already had the ideas of democracy as part of rationalism being expressed in Europe even before France- the Corsican Republic for example- and older forms of representative democracy were around- in Poland, in the Merchant Republics, in the Netherlands, where if not exactly representative the idea of electing the ruler of the country or the advisory committee was not exactly unknown. This is not to mention that Bourbon absolutism is not going to be able to survive indefinitely, certainly not with the lack of competence from the French monarchs after Louis XIV.

Democracy can certainly be weaker, it can certainly be less widespread, it can certainly have less of a commanding position, but it's not just going to shrivel up and die because the American War of independence (which barely changed the internal political system really) and French Revolution have got blunted.

 

[LeCHVCK]

Disaster at leuthen explores this. The world is more liberal but also more monarchies.

 

[SRT]

I think your POD shouldn't be wars inspired by the enlightenment, but rather the enlightenment itself.

 

[Arafeel]

Unsuksessfull Glorious Revolution would be a place to start me thinks.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I still think an alternate World War I where the Central Powers win will mean that the hoary old authoritarian monarchies get a longer lease on life, and so provide a way for us to explore how we can have modernity without liberty. Or without democracy, at least.

We're also arguably descending into a decadent period where democracy is being tested, what with the rise of authoritarian yet economically or militarily potent regimes in the East, and much dissatisfaction with weakening democratic systems in the West. But again, democracy is not synonymous with liberty.

 

[zoomar]

I still think an alternate World War I where the Central Powers win will mean that the hoary old authoritarian monarchies get a longer lease on life, and so provide a way for us to explore how we can have modernity without liberty. Or without democracy, at least.

....But again, democracy is not synonymous with liberty.

That last is a very perceptive statement. Looking at Wilhelmine Germany or the Dual Monarchy, it can be argued that the average citizen had about as much liberty to associate, speak, practice their preferred religion, and expouse politically unpopular opinions as the average Frenchman or American. They were civil societies in which courts and an honest legal process functioned. Liberty is about being (or feeling) free. Democracy is about snout-counting to determine government policy.

Had the CP powers won WW1, this would not have ushered some sort of long dark night of oppression. Both Germany and the Dual Monarchy were constitutional monarchies with elected parliaments that had actual power - just quite a bit less than in Britain.

 

[Arafeel]

I still think an alternate World War I where the Central Powers win will mean that the hoary old authoritarian monarchies get a longer lease on life, and so provide a way for us to explore how we can have modernity without liberty. Or without democracy, at least.

But then Germany and Austrian were not authoritarian monarchies in 1914. Even Russian was on its way towards a more liberal form of goverment.

 

[Faeelin]

It is, to put it bluntly, absolute bollocks. Democracy, even 18th/19th Century enlightenment democracy, did not spring fully formed from the American Revolution and spread to Europe by way of France. The colonies themselves already had elected governments (indeed this was part of the reason for the initial grievances) and that ties into a system in England of democratic powerful ruling institutions dating back to 1688 at least and which was firmly in control at this point.

A couple thoughts on this. First, England under George III became more repressive (greater restrictions on speech and assembly, for instance), not more democratic. Maybe more liberal, but that's a different point. Second, George III was very much in command of Parliament by, oh, 1775; what he wanted, he got.

and older forms of representative democracy were around- in Poland, in the Merchant Republics, in the Netherlands, where if not exactly representative the idea of electing the ruler of the country or the advisory committee was not exactly unknown.

The problem with this example is that these countries were all collapsing. Do you look to Frederick the Great or Joseph of Austria as the wave of the future, or do you look to the Venetian Republic or Polish Sejm?

 

[Alex Richards]

A couple thoughts on this. First, England under George III became more repressive (greater restrictions on speech and assembly, for instance), not more democratic. Maybe more liberal, but that's a different point. Second, George III was very much in command of Parliament by, oh, 1775; what he wanted, he got.

And yet that's a temporary situation at best. George III's mad periods cannot be avoided and the Prince Regent's lifestyle is too conductive to racking up debts for him to be able to maintain power over Parliament.

The problem with this example is that these countries were all collapsing. Do you look to Frederick the Great or Joseph of Austria as the wave of the future, or do you look to the Venetian Republic or Polish Sejm?

But the problem there is that the basic drivers all remain. The French Revolution may have accelerated the practice of the spread of democracy (though in many places reactionary thought may well have pushed it back) but the ideas of the enlightenment that led to it are still circulating and that's not a genie you can just put back in the bottle.

 

[Faeelin]

And yet that's a temporary situation at best. George III's mad periods cannot be avoided and the Prince Regent's lifestyle is too conductive to racking up debts for him to be able to maintain power over Parliament.

I don't know; madness is exacerbated by stress. I grant you that George IV is terrible, but what's the alternative? The solution for many people would be to let the right people run.

And as for bourbon France, whta happens when you have a bad king in French history before the Revolution? You get a new king.

But the problem there is that the basic drivers all remain. The French Revolution may have accelerated the practice of the spread of democracy (though in many places reactionary thought may well have pushed it back) but the ideas of the enlightenment that led to it are still circulating and that's not a genie you can just put back in the bottle.

And yet we saw in the 20th century Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. Despite our enlightement ideals, these were very anti-modern, repressive regimes.

It's something of an aberration, in terms of human history, for people to live in societies where they can say what they want and do what they want. Why does that have society have to prevail?

 

[Alex Richards]

I don't know; madness is exacerbated by stress. I grant you that George IV is terrible, but what's the alternative? The solution for many people would be to let the right people run.

And as for bourbon France, whta happens when you have a bad king in French history before the Revolution? You get a new king.

The issue is, before the revolution, you had a bad king and the nobles had sufficient power to replace him with a new king. After Louis XIV you have the fundamental issue of bad kings and a nobility who have been emasculated enough to have insufficient power base for a coup, while the existing fall back mechanisms- the estates-general, brings in a form of democratic representation, it is a step back from Royal absolutism by definition.

It's a similar issue in Britain. Parliament has already had the taste of power, the merchants and the middle classes who were actually enfranchised would consider that, in the event of a bad king, they themselves are the 'right people' to step in and run the country.

And yet we saw in the 20th century Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. Despite our enlightement ideals, these were very anti-modern, repressive regimes.

It's something of an aberration, in terms of human history, for people to live in societies where they can say what they want and do what they want. Why does that have society have to prevail?

A lot of things that are around today, in terms of human history, can be considered aberrations. A child mortality rate of single digits per 1000 births is an aberration in human history, even more so than the idea of democratic representation. It's a function of the fact that human culture and society has probably seen more advances in the last 2-300 years than at any point since the Neolithic Revolution.

The reasons for Nazism, Fascism and Communism arising are highly complex and very much a feature of individual countries and the fact that Communism's first great success was in Russia- where it basically replaced one Tsar with a different one- heavily influenced how that ideology developed. I would not pretend to believe in some Whigish notion that there is an inevitable drive towards democracy that can never be reversed, but what I would say is that an enlightenment driven by the rediscovery of the ideas of Greece and Rome is going to concurrently see the democratic ideals expressed by many of those writers brought back to the fore. It's notable that even in Vienna- a city who's entire economy was based on supporting the Habsburg court, the most unfertile soil imaginable for ideas of democracy- there were those who were supportive of the ideas of the French Revolution.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Liberty and democracy are amorphous concepts; I will define democrafy in terms of all citizens having direct decision making in the political system- under this definition all democracies have been pre-Modern, I..e. Athens and Venice, and only because contemporary notions of "citizenship" precluded large swathes of the population.

Is it possible that a modern world could exist wherein liberal democracies are not the dominant system? Perhaps. Barring a 1984 dystopia however you will have "democratic" impulses. Education politicizes people, as does weslth- the rise of the merchant classes inevitably yields political agitation. Bourbon absolutism and Stalinist totalitarianism are distinctly modern phenomena in that they can only exist where a state has the infrastructure to be so overbearing I.e. the modern era. Nonetheless a cursory glance at per capita GDP will reveal that a "modern" society inevitably produces pressures for political liberties.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

Liberty follows modernity. From my understanding, quasi-modernization is impossible in the long run.

 

[Faeelin]

Is it possible that a modern world could exist wherein liberal democracies are not the dominant system? Perhaps. Barring a 1984 dystopia however you will have "democratic" impulses. Education politicizes people, as does weslth- the rise of the merchant classes inevitably yields political agitation.

Ming and Qing China had vibrant commercial classes; where was the political agitation there?

 

[Alex Richards]

Ming and Qing China had vibrant commercial classes; where was the political agitation there?

Confucism itself brings in a new dimension to this, being characterised by the praising of a strictly enforced hierarchy, though there was some political agitation during periods of dynastic weakness.

 

[profxyz]

Confucism itself brings in a new dimension to this, being characterised by the praising of a strictly enforced hierarchy, though there was some political agitation during periods of dynastic weakness.

It's always a bit risky to argue that 'Confucianism' itself is to blame for Chinese non-democracy (though I grant that you can make reasonable arguments for that): certainly the Song dynasty, which was probably closer to industrialization compared with Ming or early Qing, was also the dynasty where royal power was most curtailed.

But I also do think that had the Ming or Qing, by whatever PoD, modernized, they would hardly have become democracies. Even if we grant that with greater standards of living Ming/Qing populaces start wanting more say in governance, how can this translate into democratic procedure without a clear historical precedent to follow? Most likely this would have translated into a demand for a more comprehensive/'fair' examinations procedure for officials and a decline in royal authority, rather than have the people decide who would become the officials. A modernized Ming/Qing, in this sense, seems to lean more towards a technocracy than a democracy.

 

[Alex Richards]

It's always a bit risky to argue that 'Confucianism' itself is to blame for Chinese non-democracy (though I grant that you can make reasonable arguments for that): certainly the Song dynasty, which was probably closer to industrialization compared with Ming or early Qing, was also the dynasty where royal power was most curtailed.

But I also do think that had the Ming or Qing, by whatever PoD, modernized, they would hardly have become democracies. Even if we grant that with greater standards of living Ming/Qing populaces start wanting more say in governance, how can this translate into democratic procedure without a clear historical precedent to follow? Most likely this would have translated into a demand for a more comprehensive/'fair' examinations procedure for officials and a decline in royal authority, rather than have the people decide who would become the officials. A modernized Ming/Qing, in this sense, seems to lean more towards a technocracy than a democracy.

Oh true, as I said it adds a new dimension to it, another contributing factor.

As for Qing modernisation, there does seem to be evidence that the Dowager Empress was organising an elective advisory Parliament at the end of her reign aiming for 1916 as the date for the first election so I wouldn't say it's completely out of the question, though it's less likely for an internally generated reform period.

Of course, one of the other big issues is the question of literacy.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The ability to vote and to have government depend on the counting of votes is in many ways a false liberty. For who do we vote for? Political parties who set the agenda through their friends in the media. Pressure groups can change policy over the long run, but mainly because that change of policy is seen as logical by sufficient numbers of rising politicians who edge out a conservative old guard. It would be wrong to say Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth won the argument on climate change, rather that the new generation of politicians was more open to looking at their arguments seriously.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Son of Leman Russ]

The ability to vote and to have government depend on the counting of votes is in many ways a false liberty. For who do we vote for? Political parties who set the agenda through their friends in the media. Pressure groups can change policy over the long run, but mainly because that change of policy is seen as logical by sufficient numbers of rising politicians who edge out a conservative old guard. It would be wrong to say Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth won the argument on climate change, rather that the new generation of politicians was more open to looking at their arguments seriously.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

This is more or less the truth. Democracy isn't the best way to govern a body of people, Aristocracy-Meritocracy which a group of Elites (analogous to Educated Nobles in Greek Philosophy instead of overpompous feuding nobles of medieval europe) are the one who has the rein of real power, is the best way in the long run to go, even in the future.

And the closest thing we had in Educated Aristocracy and Philosopher-King is at early Islamic Caliphates, which friends and disciples of the Prophet (PBUH) basically hold the reins and spread the glory of Islam. Things only going south when they try to completely centralize their rule and nobles start feuding with another nobles.