“If belief in the principles of political philosophy we have inherited were to disappear altogether, it would pose a serious threat to the functioning of our institutions,” writes American philosopher Joseph Heath. He is referring to such things as democracy, the rule of law, and the impartiality of the judiciary. It sounds noble, heroic, and inspiring. But is it true?
This is actually an interesting thought experiment. What would happen if those principles were replaced by a belief in something entirely different?
Well, it would probably depend on what those new beliefs were. If people came to believe that anyone who blasphemed against the gods must have their throat cut, or that bloody human sacrifices were necessary, life would almost certainly be incomparably worse than it is today. But suppose those principles were replaced by a belief in the divine right of kings. Would people behave any differently than they do now?
Let us examine this more closely.
Those at the very top. When they know what they want to achieve, they find ways to achieve it. They regard measures such as censorship and political show trials as perfectly legitimate. They do not go so far as to murder their opponents, execute them publicly, or torture them, but that is a matter of prevailing customs and personal courage, not political philosophy. For them, the “rule of law” means whatever happens to suit their purposes. If belief in democracy were replaced by belief in the divine right of kings, it is hard to imagine that their behavior would change.
Their supporters—those who attend demonstrations, engage in political activities, work for NGOs, or simply wear political badges—differ from their leaders mainly in being more radical. For example, a surprisingly large proportion of them regard the murder of political opponents as a legitimate means of advancing the right values. Here, too, it is difficult to imagine what difference the loss of “belief in the principles of political philosophy” would make.
Ordinary people generally trust the system in the sense that they consider it somewhat corrupt but expect the routine business of everyday life to function reasonably well. At the same time, they know that if they openly challenge those in power, they might get away with it if they are lucky. If they are unlucky, however, they may fare just as badly as their great-grandfathers did under the Emperor.
That leaves us with opposition activists, who constantly complain that those in power do not behave according to the provisions of the constitution and the principles set out in political philosophy textbooks. They would certainly benefit from losing their faith in democracy. They would stop getting so worked up, and nothing else would change.
It seems, then, that even if we completely abandoned all those ideals, such as the rule of law, our lives would be no worse than they are today, and our countries would be no worse governed. By contrast, we would benefit enormously from reviving ideals such as decency in everyday life and solidarity among members of the same nation.
But that is another subject entirely.