By Keith Best
Is there an ideal society to which we can all strive which reconciles different political theories and brings near universal contentment? Is it Bhutan’s measurement of gross national happiness (rather than gross national product) or Thomas More’s Utopia? Can negative human characteristics of self-interest, acquisitive desire and volatility be schooled to achieve such an end and the finer aspects of self-sacrifice, philanthropy and sense of community encapsulated in the rather overworked description of “love” be brought to the fore? Each human being is complex – capable of horrific cruelty and depravity yet also of philanthropy and self-sacrifice for others. Each is unique and so to devise a system that accommodates all is challenging. Some are individuals who relish that isolation whereas others enjoy and are dependent on a society of family, friends or colleagues – manifested in family life, sports teams and a variety of groups and organisations. Some like uniformity, others make a point of being different.
For a society to work, however, I posit that it needs an overwhelming number of its citizens to have a sense of community and obligation towards that community. Current trends are not encouraging as was pointed out only recently in the St George’s House, Windsor Castle, annual lecture by Cardinal Archbishop Vincent Nichols (head of the Roman Catholic Church in Westminster) who, in a clear, lucid and persuasive talk, spoke of the cult of the individual being inimical to the human spirit and that human beings are part of the community on which they rely. Although not quoting Donne (“no man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main”) he spoke of the falsity of subjective truth and, gave examples of where the individual interest is promoted above that of the community, how rights cannot be de-termined in a subjective way but only in a collective understanding. His theme was that the cult of the importance of the individual (sometimes identified in racial, cultural, religious terms) has superseded that of the community – yet we are born dependent on the community (our immediate family) and remain so for our existence. What struck me was the obvious: that individual, subjective interpretation of concepts such as truth and justice lead only to anarchy or autocracy without these being collectively under-stood by the community as a whole. Humans generally like collective belief systems on which they can rely as being shared by others – which, after all, are the very bases of religions.
A starting point might be to see if there is consensus on what an ideal society, both domestically and internationally, might look like. So many different forms of government have not only been tried but are extant today for us to examine. Democracy itself can take many forms. Bentham’s greatest good of the greatest number leaves others dispossessed as does bolshevism leave the mensheviks unrepresented. Legislators will speak of laws for the public good – yet behind such assertion may lie very partisan interests: one person’s freedom is another’s servitude. The goals of prosperity and peace are universal desires across all ethnicities, cultures and creeds – indeed all religions invite prayer and invoke the Deity for these seemingly evasive aims. Yet, as is often stated, peace is not merely the absence of war but an inner personal peace and harmony within one’s being and community. Most communities manage it but is in political discourse and governmental management where so often policies fail to deliver. It is, therefore, perhaps natural that we should look at those levels as to why they are not delivering.
Many would argue that for a society to be durable it should be fair – but trying to assess what constitutes fairness depends very much on individual opinion and where people are located in the societal spectrum. Another starting point may be that there should be the rule of law which is not abused to favour one class over another (as UK property laws and criminal sanctions clearly did in UK law until only a century ago) and is applied equally to all. We are seeing a spate of legal challenges in the USA to the use of Presidential Executive Orders which have been stretched so far as to question their current constitutional propriety. I remain comforted that only recently the attempt by a British Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament was ruled unlawful in our courts and, thus, it was as if it had never happened and was reversed! The applicability of the constraints of the rule of law to the rich and powerful as well as to other sections of society is a saving grace. Nevertheless, we should always be mindful that those in power can subvert or change the rule of law for their own purposes which is why some constitutions are written and are entrenched (requiring a high bar for any change) or there is a Basic Law (a Grundgesezt as in Germany) against which to measure any legislative change.
Security and economic stability are regarded as the principal responsibilities of government. If so, many are failing in that endeavour.
The world appears to be in a sorry mess. The pessimist will point out that autocracy seems to overcoming democracy in global relations, that wars are breaking out in many places and that both globalisation and free trade as well as the rule of law are in retreat; genocide is being claimed in the Middle East and overseas aid is being cut by major donors. Coupled with the existing trend of the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer these factors are likely to exacerbate rather than solve the problems. Migration is now regarded as a major problem to be addressed (a far cry from those seeking their fortune in former years who created the stimulus to many nations’ greatness) yet is likely to increase as population growth in developing countries unable to provide work for their expanding populations will see more economic migration as well as those fleeing from conflict. The use and benefit of artificial intelligence is likely to be unequally distributed. Climate change is endangering livelihoods in many parts which will only exacerbate the problems. It is a litany of despair and we must search diligently for the famed silver lining in this cloud if we are not to become desperate as a species. We only have to turn to recent history to see the rise of the demagogue and the beguiling of a people yearning for certainty and security who will turn to these false gods in hope unmatched by reality.
Authoritarianism, despite its obvious historical endings in war and tears, appears to be more effective than sluggish and inefficient democratic systems. I am not forgetting the examples of the benevolent despot, such as Frederick the Great of Prussia, Joseph II of Austria, and Catherine the Great of Russia perhaps best summarised in the song of the Grand Inquisitor in Gilbert & Sullivans’ The Gondoliers “There lived a King, as I’ve been told; in the wonder-working days of old; when hearts were twice as good as gold; and twenty times as mellow. Good-temper triumphed in his face; and in his heart he found a place for all the erring human race and every wretched fellow.” – although, as aficionados of the operetta will know, that ended badly as, having promoted everyone to the top of the tree, it became obvious that “When everyone is Somebody, then no-one’s Anybody.”
Even in democratic systems the voice of the people can go unheeded. Electoral systems can lead to minority governments holding unmerited power; representatives can be elected on a minority of the vote (sometimes as low as a third of the electorate) with the majority having voted for other candidates. It is true, of course, that some members of the electorate are uninterested in politics and dissociate themselves from the process by not voting: you can take the horse to the water but cannot make it drink as the old proverb states. An uneducated or unparticipative electorate is the fodder on which demagogues and tyrants feed, often exploiting that ignorance by proposing preposterous ideas which do not stand up to close scrutiny yet feed the prejudice of those who want to believe them. History is so littered with examples that none here need mention.
Maybe there are no new answers to these seemingly intractable questions (which, after all, have dominated human history from its very beginning. Perhaps we should not seek the impossible, if so it be, in which humanity can find a new paradigm of celebrating difference rather than using it as a source of division, of respecting the integrity of others who choose to live by different standards (rather than having them imposed), of upholding a universally accepted rule of law and behaviour and of settling differences though binding arbitration (e.g. mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?) rather than through force of arms. Yet, to relinquish that hope is not only a counsel of despair but also a commentary that the myriad of activists worldwide who have striven for these goals have been wasting their time. Having been chair of the World Federalist Movement/Institute for Global Policy (WFM/IGP) for more years than I care to remember and now Chair of the Universal Peace Federation (UK) I reject that on behalf of all those far more distinguished than I who have been seeking to bring about a better world.
It took the endeavours of one man, Henri Dunant, walking across the battlefield of Solferino, to found the Red Cross. Eleanor Roosevelt can take much credit for the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Tommy Koh’s skilful chairing and perseverance led to the adoption of the UN’s Conference on the Law of the Sea as well as his role at the Rio Earth Summit. International jurists have been generous to state that without the global NGO network we called the Coalition for the International Criminal Court at WFM/IGP we still would not now have the ICC. The list is endless and these international institutions, although sometimes under current threat, are there in existence and the genie cannot be forced back into the bottle. Some may lack effective enforcement mechanisms for which the world may not yet be ready but, like human invention in science for good or ill, they cannot be unthought.
It is this knowledge that each human catastrophe may lead to improving the way in which we manage our affairs globally as well as nationally (with now the great challenge being climate change and the further technological revolution of artificial intelligence and how we adapt to these) that keeps these activists pursuing their goals. There is frustration, of course, at the seeming impunity following deliberate flouting of international rules – whether it is the crime of aggression or alleged genocide, trashing of existing treaty obligations or subjecting people to modern slavery or deliberate denial that such rules apply. Few such obligations have an associated court in which disputes can be adjudicated and judgements given as to action to be pursued – so the international community has to rely on condemnation and/or economic sanctions that often have the effect of punishing the very population which is the subject of the illegal action or stimulating domestic production (as in arms embargoes). In a bizarre manner the US President may have stumbled, either by design or accident, on an effective way of getting dissident nations to comply: the use of tariffs. The current threat of stinging tariffs on a country’s products or services destined for export have, so far, brought many to a state of compliance – witness Cambodia and Thailand’s recent spat.
We should, therefore, despite the pessimistic outlook, be determined and persevere. We know that we represent the prayers and desires of most of humanity who want to live in peace and economic security – we can identify those who stand in the way and call them out as well as seeking to strengthen those existing international institutions that have authority to investigate and make decisions. Democracy is best at its lowest level where the factors are well understood – a federal system giving autonomy at the basic level with reference upwards to a higher authority appropriate to the decisions to be taken is a proven way to empower individuals and does not have to be mechanistic – citizens’ assemblies are akin to community organisations in which sometimes people are more interested than going to a polling station on a cold, wet, windy night. “All politics is local” as former US Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, used to articulate and whom I had the pleasure of meeting in his office shortly before his retirement.
Many activists have gone before and, as Margaret Mead the American anthropologist is often quoted “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” She was wrong, of course, but the encouragement is inspirational! The activists will not give up!
Keith Best
28/07/2025