crisis of legitimacy
In democratic countries around the world, people are becoming increasingly disillusioned with systems of governance that are proving incapable of addressing the increasingly acute social and ecological problems facing every society. As the New York Times suggested recently, democracies everywhere are facing “a crisis of legitimacy” in the twenty-first century.
But this crisis should not come as a surprise. After all, the structure of contemporary democracy – governance as a partisan contest of power – is over 250 years old. This structure was conceived before the invention of the steam engine, railroads, electricity, the light bulb, the automobile, airplanes, radio, television, telephones, the atomic bomb, computers, multi-national corporations, the internet – and virtually every other feature of modern life. So it should be no surprise that partisan democracy has become an anachronism that is incapable of managing the problems now facing humanity.
What is needed now is a reinvention of democratic governance from its most basic assumptions on up. The partisan contest of power must be replaced by the call to self-less service within systems characterized by principled collective decision making. Contests of power inherently invite the corrupting influence of money; reduce complex issues to simplistic slogans; confound long-term planning and global responsibilities; and exert a corrosive influence on the human spirit. This is what people everywhere are beginning to recognize – especially young people, who see partisan democracy for the anachronism that it is.
Following the recent revolution in Egypt, the Bahá’ís of that country issued an open letter to their fellow Egyptians, inviting an authentic dialogue regarding the construction of a just and sustainable system of governance. In that letter they warn that “there is no shortage of self-interested forces in the world that would prevent us from determining our own future or, alternatively, would invite us to voluntarily abdicate this responsibility. Colonialism, religious orthodoxy, authoritarian rule, and outright tyranny have all played their part in the past. Today, the ‘gentler’ force of consumerism and the erosion of morality which it fosters are equally capable of holding us back, under the pretence of making us more free.”
“Are we to move,” the letter continues, “towards an individualistic, fragmented society, wherein all feel liberated to pursue their own interests, even at the expense of the common good? Will we be tempted by the lures of materialism and its beholden agent, consumerism? Will we opt for a system that feeds on religious fanaticism? Are we prepared to allow an elite to emerge that will be oblivious to our collective aspirations, and may even seek to manipulate our desire for change? Or, will the process of change be allowed to lose momentum, dissolve into factional squabbling, and crumble under the weight of institutional inertia? It might justly be argued that, looking across the Arab region—and, indeed, beyond—the world wants for an unquestionably successful model of society worthy of emulation. Thus, if no existing model proves to be satisfactory, we might well consider charting a different course, and perhaps demonstrate to the community of nations that a new, truly progressive approach to the organization of society is possible.”
People in every part of the world are longing for such “a new, truly progressive approach to the organization of society.” Partisan democracy is not the answer. It’s time to move beyond the culture of contest.
