Democracy is a principal of governance. Democracy is as old as man and his quest to answer his needs in a community: the need to control his own affairs, and also the need to effectively toil with other people.
Every living thing is made up of cells: there are two kinds of cells, the eukaryote cell and the prokaryote cell. The eukaryote cell has a distinct nucleus and organelles. The nucleus is the central headquarters that controls every function in the cell. The organelles are autonomous parts that have and do different jobs. Cell efficiency, heavily, relies on the nucleus and the organelles to work together. Now, the prokaryote cell, on the other hand, has no distinct nucleus and organelles. Conversely, the prokaryote is not as efficient because it lacks an internal structure. To have optimum ability there has to be structure and autonomy in the cell, but there also has to be cooperation in the cell. We are made up of eukaryote cell, if our cells, the basis of life, need these certain principals to work effectively: then how far are we, as people, from needing the same principals to reach maximum efficiency in a community.
But to study democracy, one does not have to go to that extreme; therefore, we will be examining societies and men.
It is innate for men to be autonomous; it is innate for people to be structured, and last of all and most importantly, people need to work together; to moreover reach the greatest effectiveness in a community. Working together sounds ideological, because it seems, often, hard at times to accomplish. Maybe, part of the answer lies in autonomy. When people are comfortable with being autonomous they may have an easier time working together. It’s not about domination, but respecting the autonomy of others.
Democracy, “the endless striving for liberty, for justice, and for power, that has been the history of peoples everywhere and in all times. It is a struggle as ancient as human will, reflecting our wish to master our own immediate world, to be free of tyranny from without and within.” Autonomous as defined by Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary states, “having the right or power of self-government: undertaken or carried on without outside control: SELF-CONTAINED”. Liberty lies in autonomy. A natural struggle often occurs, which is the need to be free….it becomes immanent as we pursue our immediate happiness.
We will be looking at how different societies sought to deal with this ever-present problem of community living. The concepts of democracy, which are basically communal principles, are equally important when one wants to fully comprehend the essence of democracy. Therefore it is equally important to look at some of the early developments and basic principles.
Greek: Early Principles
The “Greek tribes wrested control of their cities from the rule of kings and blood clans and set up the foundations of communities to govern themselves”. Two things occurred; one was getting away from tribal and blood clan mentality and structure, which in essence lay in the need to depart from hereditary rule. The people wanted more than clan and tribal systems. Moreover, these systems were basically hierarchical and caused tyranny and discontent: and the discontent was more than often attributed to the oppression of being dominated. Now, fundamentally the power of a few could be dispersed back to the people and liberty could have a new beginning. The clan and tribe systems kept the people in factions; moreover, it was not going to work, because the number of people grew. So some alternative was needed to progress and to keep the community functioning.
The Greeks called it politeia and the Romans a republica (public affairs) or republic, hence, the development of constitutions. It is said that “Aristotle catalogued some 150 constitutions” , and he also noticed (that) some limits were set on the rulers. Some practices at the time were: - Citizens participated in passing legislation, without having (only) representatives act on their behalf. - Citizen juries (were used): where justice was the responsibility of the people. - Appointment by lot to political offices - Citizen soldiers - The device of ostracism where people could be exiled.
The governance of citizens was enacted and Democracy- the kratos, or rule of the demos, the people, was born. But the life of democracy was very short: it seemed to be an anomaly; people were unable to continue in this system, as the economy came to be dependent on other people outside the community. Self-sufficiency was undermined. Moreover, people from the other societies who would eventually come in, and had different views. Aristocracy and monarchy appears to have been the chief governing methods in many of these other societies.
Greece was growing and it was harder to keep the democratic principles working, erosion occurred at every turn. The Athenians, Plato and Socrates did not like democracy, even though it was practiced in their society. With the Macedonians coming in and wanting the prize of this vast empire, things started to change. Democracy stood on its last legs, but there existed a silver lining: the legacy of free institutions was recognized, and there was also the uncovering of the secrets to liberty, which in essence lay in government by the people. These truths would ultimately lie covered for centuries.
Uncovering Democracy
It would not be until the Muslims uncovered the ancient Greek texts, that Greek ideas would once again come to the forefront. While the Abbasids, a Muslim group, held power from 750 A.D. until 1258 A.D., it would be during this time that an interest would be aroused in the ancients. “Muslims philosophers were highly interested in Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic thought”. But the political thought was not as important as was the religious aspect to the Muslims. Europe at the time was in the dark ages.
Not until the “Enlightenment” period would the ideas fully resurrect and begin to cause a stir and excitement. It would begin throughout Europe and would culminate in France.
French Revolution
Enlightenment, the age of reason spread throughout Europe. As the new world was giving up her riches, “The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.” Countries flourished in the old world. Changes swept the European land, unrest and excitement was the order of the day. The time of revolt had arrived. Revolution was no longer subversive; men like Francois-Noel Babeuf and Philippe-Antoine Merlin would come to the vanguard. It was the rural discontent against excessively burdensome taxation that would be the beginnings of reexamination of the seigniorial rights and privileges. “The Revolution was not just popular ferment; it was also the attempt at reconstructing central authority upon new institutional foundations.” The economy of France included the Bourgeoisie buying government offices. (Bribes were common) Little of those attained riches went to development of the country and was exclusively spent on personal interests. With a waning economy and the burden of four taxes, unrest began with those most affected, the rabble (lowly). A constitution was in the making to subvert the violence of the peasants. The peasants felt that they may be left out of the consultations at the expense of the upper classes, and that a plan was being devised to defeat the will of the people. To quell the violence an “Assembly decreed the abolition of the feudal system and the privileges of persons, towns and provinces: it also proclaimed equality before the law and the suppression of tithes.” On the other hand, the constitution’s main emphasis was on freedom. Equality was affirmed in the court and the law, and that all government positions were open to all. Article 3, stated “sovereignty resides in the nation.” Moreover, Sovereignty was deemed indivisible and so the classes were abolished. “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen”, (the constitution) became the dogma of the Revolution, the catechism of freedom and equality”.
“The society of the old regime was built upon hierarchy and privilege, which is to say upon inequality.” It was the first article that proclaimed equality in the new constitution. By far the biggest achievement was “the opportunity for all Frenchmen to be appointed to any position in the state.” The developments in France received ovation from other countries. But, in fact, revolution was happening not only in Europe but also in the place where the greatest developments would occur.
American Revolution
Across the great divide, at the same time another revolution was taking place. Britain was in conflict with its colonies: the old problem of taxation had arisen once again. This time the end result would be the formation of a new nation.
Citizens would eventually assemble in the new country and a constitution would have to be devised. “ Until that time, the only real democracy in America was practiced by the century old Iroquois Confederacy, whose unwritten constitution did guarantee equal political rights to men and women.” It would be the principals of the Iroquois that would give the needed direction for developments to the newly formed constitution. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was at its starting point, but not until the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 did it progress further. It culminated in 1789, a total of 13 years, the 55 citizens working on the constitution looked far and wide. Thomas Jefferson looked to the French model. Benjamin Franklin looked to the Iroquois. “Throughout the eighteenth century, the republican and democratic principles that lay at the heart of the Five Nations’ system of self-government had been included among the studies of the philosophers of Europe and America who were seeking a more just and humane way for men to be governed.”
The Iroquois, a confederacy made up of five tribes, had the making of something remarkable. Something that was unattainable to the mighty intellectuals of Greece. France would freeze in its tracks; development only went so far, because it only replaced one system of rule for another. The Americans would prove to be equal to none. “The Founding fathers were concerned over the possibility that the new nation like the ancient empire of Rome, could simply expand beyond its ability to administer national institutions. The best adaptation the Americans could make became our current arrangement between states and the federal government, but it has not worked nearly as well as the Six Nation’s procedures, which also recognized clans as an important element in holding the national fabric together.”
The “Great Law of Peace” an agreement between five Iroquois tribes was originally a peace treaty. The founding fathers of the constitution took a deep interest in the native governance, so deep that it would influence the Declaration of Independence. Freedom and liberty was a part of the native society that astounded the Europeans. Before that freedom was only a concept, now it was a reality played out before European eyes. War was intense in the new land prior to the coming of the Europeans. Peace would eventually come to the fractionated region and with it would begin a system of equality, which would reverberate throughout the world and across generations.
The process of the treaties was a common practice: Daniel Usner, Professor of history at Cornell University, had this to say, “The Iroquois most influenced the Constitution in the treaty-making context. There was a tradition of North American Indians making treaties with one another. Many of the cultural traditions that went into the protocol of those treaties were adopted by the governors and officials within the English and French and Spanish colonies of North America.” The treaties, the ideas of freedom permeated European thought. “Both the French and American revolutions were advanced, in part, because colonists had seen, in Indian forms of government, how the democratic structure functioned when people elected leaders who debated issues in public forums.”
The Great Law of Peace, promoted strong individualism as a group and at the same time promoting equality of all groups; the groups were autonomous, but yet, they were a piece of the larger picture. The people elected the leaders and therefore having representation: more specifically, it was the clan-mothers who were the electors. Equality in their society proved itself by including women. Audrey Shenandoah, a clan mother of the Onondaga Nation, had this to say, “Within our society we maintain a balance between the responsibilities of the women, the responsibilities of the men, of the chief, of the faith keepers. All the people in between have a special job to do to help to keep the balance so that at no time do we come to a place within our society where anyone has more power than any of the rest, for our leadership all have equal power.” The freedom that comes from equality was a chief factor in initiating the women’s liberation movement. Sally Roesch Wagner was diligently searching where “Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Matilda Joslyn Gage got their utopian ideas regarding sexual equality and transformation of the patriarchal society in which they lived.”
Both lived in Upstate New York and were influenced by the matrilineal structure of Iroquois.
The issue, that the Iroquois influenced American society, was presented in a 1952 essay entitled, “Americanizing the White Man” by Felix Cohen. In it he wrote, “…it is out of a rich Indian democratic tradition that the distinctive political ideals of American life emerged. Universal suffrage for women as well as for men, the pattern of states within a state that we call federalism, the habit of treating chiefs as servants of the people instead of their masters, the insistence that the community must respect the diversity of men and the diversity of their dreams-all these things were part of the American way of life before Columbus landed.”
The French were the first to be deeply influenced by the Indians. It would be their close interactions such as the intermarriages and the gift giving ceremonies that would affect them. With such a strong culture it is easy to ascertain that the Europeans would eventually assimilate. Olive Dickason in her book is quick to point out the differences in both cultures. “ The King of France spent a good deal of time and energy, not to mention money, maintaining alliances with these people whose ideas of equality and individual freedom he would not of tolerated for an instant in his own subjects.” The strong penchant of freedom and equality incited European discontent. The embers of discontent were fanned by winds from a far away country. Indians did not have to revolt to find liberty, because they enjoyed the fruits of their labour/system, they found a greater liberty in peace.
Canasatego, the Onondaga sachem, admonished, “Our wise forefathers established union and amity between the Five Nations. This has made us formidable. This has given us great weight and authority with our neighboring nations. We are a powerful confederacy, and by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken you will acquire much strength and power; therefore, whatever befalls you, do not fall out with one another.”
The Constitution was in the making, the citizens had assembled, the ideas were settled and the 55 citizens lay down their thoughts: among them, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and John Ruteldge. Benjamin Franklin used the Iroquois’ ideas to from the Albany Plan of Union in 1754. “Franklin thought the ways of American Indians more conductive to the good life than the ways of “ Civilized Nations.”” “Thomas Paine was a secretary to an Iroquois Treaty at Easton, Pennsylvania in early 1777. It appears Paine heard an Iroquois prophecy about struggling beasts that would shake the foundations of the League of the Iroquois. In the end, lesser beasts would win and take up the ideas of the Iroquois.” A pamphlet detailed the prophecy, “It said that the American people had assimilated Iroquois ideas and that, therefore, the victory of the American people would be a victory for humanity because the American people inherited the ideas of the Iroquois.” Finally John Rutledge, he would write the first draft. When the final draft was being read He is said to have read from the Great Law of the Iroquois. The “constitution was made and foundations were laid down.
The “two major influences on the United States Constitution (being) the European Enlightenment and the political system of the Iroquois Confederacy.”
Conclusion
Democracy has been a powerful tool in the cause of liberty and justice. The Iroquois gave sovereignty to individuals and that appears to be the answer to the age-old question of making democracy work. But one must not forget the underlying need for high morals. As the Great Law of peace was for that very reason: to make life better for the Iroquois, after years of factions and war. The Peacemaker, a prophet, set out to establish peace under the natural laws of the universe. He first argued that “ the Maker of Life (or Great Creator) could not of intended that humans would kill one another…The Peacemaker said that humans have the gift of intelligence…The purpose of human political organization, The Peacemaker argued, must be to oppose violence. This, he said, can be accomplished when men of healthy minds and bodies unite to create a just world…The Peacemaker proposed that a council be formed to provide a forum in which violence would henceforth be replaced with thinking, and disputes would be settled with words.”
Sovereignty had different meanings to both the Iroquois and the Europeans. To Europeans a sovereign is a person of supreme power and authority. The reference was to a supreme being in the universe, they owned everything all the persons and property. In feudalism “the idea of rights or appeals against powers of the state as manifested in the whims of the individual lords of the manor simply did not exist as a remedy for the peasant.” Now on the other hand, the Iroquois believed, “Within the structure (of the United Nations) confederate nations enjoy internal sovereignty…” This was further enhanced by giving a voice to individuals, “…every individual had a right to voice an opinion and to agree or disagree on actions to be taken.” It should then be apparent that many of the concepts of the Iroquois Confederacy existed in the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Bruce Johansen posed the question of the size of Philadelphia in 1776. “They were small islands in a sea of American Indian Confederacies. They traded they conducted diplomacy, they interacted socially, day by day, and they couldn’t help but be shaped by what was happening in this land.” Democracy may be poignant about equality and liberty, but the Indians derivative of these concepts came by way of peace and thus revolution was unnecessary.
The power of both constitutions lay in the strong morals of the people. There was the concept of putting the lowly in a position that was equal to everyone; the idea that all people were the same and deserved the same rights; the idea that leaders were servants of the people, women’s suffrage, and the importance of matricidal lines. The power and concept of equality, which the Indians practiced, would create an institution that transcended the bounds of human prejudices. Franklin poised a satirical question, “it would be a very strange thing if six nations of ignorant savages should be able to form a scheme for such a union and be able to execute it in such a manner as it has subsisted for ages and appears indissoluble and yet a like union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies.” Somehow these ignorant savages would have a lasting system of governance, and the essence being the moral structure.
Such high ideals go beyond savagery, and become the firm foundation on which civilizations are built. Recognizing the rights of individuals are the unalienable rights of all people, and only when they are recognized do we really progress as a community.
Biographical List
Barreiro, Jose, Indian Roots of American Democracy, Cornell: Northeast Indian Quarterly, 1988
Dickason, Olive Patricia, Canada’s First Nations, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2002
Fisher, Mary Pat, Living Religions, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 2002
Godechot, Jacques, France and the Atlantic Revolution of the Eighteen Century, 1770-1799, New York: The Free Press, 1965
Johansen, Bruce E., Debating Democracy Native American Legacy of Freedom, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 1998
Lyons, Oren & John Mohawk, Exiled in the Land of the Free, Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers, 1992
Watson, Patrick & Benjamin Barber, The Struggle for Democracy, Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys Ltd., 1988
No comments:
Post a Comment