People vary so much in their personalities and ideas that disagreements about governance are inevitable.
People often have different viewpoints, reflecting their personalities, experiences, social groups and economic circumstances. Such difference are unavoidable. They lead to aspects of governance for which each society finds its own solutions. And these solutions may need to be renegotiated as circumstances change.
Human beings are so complex, and there are so many sources of difference, that there will never be uniformity in people’s views – so negotiation and compromise are essential.
People differ in the value they place on ‘freedom’ and there are differing views on the meaning of ‘fairness’. Isaiah Berlin defined Two Concepts of Liberty which are in constant tension:
· The ‘individualist’ sees society as separate individuals who each want as much freedom as possible. They want liberty from interference – ‘negative liberty’ in Berlin’s terminology – and they see fairness as a right to keep what they have earned. This focus leads to a desire for a limited State, lower taxes, a rejection of the idea that others can make claims on them, and an emphasis on individual responsibility.
· The ‘collectivist’ sees society as a body composed of interdependent people who want to ensure that everyone is looked after. Collectivists value Berlin’s ‘positive liberty’: the opportunity or “capability” to pursue a fulfilling life.[1] They see fairness as the apportionment of shared costs – of public goods and services, and support of the needy – with some recognition of people’s ability to pay: usually through taxation.
In this book it is argued that there is merit in both these viewpoints – the collective needs of a society and the perspective of the individual should both be considered – and most people’s views encompass aspects of both. For analysis purposes, though, it is easier to treat them as opposing viewpoints so that the tensions between them can be clearly understood.
Different cultural backgrounds, for example religious beliefs, affect people’s attitudes and values. And individuals vary in their tolerance of change and their openness to new ideas and experiences. Isaiah Berlin explained what he called ‘value pluralism’:
“According to Berlin’s pluralism, genuine values are many. ..When two or more values clash, it is not because one or another has been misunderstood; nor can it be said, a priori, that any one value is always more important than another. Liberty can conflict with equality or with public order; mercy with justice; love with impartiality and fairness; ..Conflicts of values are ‘an intrinsic, irremovable element in human life’; ..‘These collisions of values are of the essence of what they are and what we are’”.
Individuals and organisations can have an impact on each other with their behaviour, actions and decisions. Each of the parties involved has different viewpoints. Those with power need to consider how it will be experienced by those over whom it is exercised. A failure to imagine the impact of actions and decisions can result in friction or instability. There are many scenarios in which this occurs:
· At the level of personal interactions, a motorcyclist might enjoy the speed and roaring sound of his machine but people nearby might resent the disturbance to their peace and the threat presented to pedestrians.
· A politician might want to regulate the quality of food for health reasons without considering the impact on farmers’ incomes or consumer prices. This isn’t a matter of simple right and wrong. The most acceptable compromise should be sought – with the necessary political explanation.
People’s failure to respect each other as equals is all too common. They might assume some form of superiority, or feel certain that they are right, or feel that they can impose their will without problem:
· In economics, it takes the form of exploiting the less wealthy.
· It permeates morality, in reducing people’s acceptance of others from different cultural backgrounds.
· It crops up in the law, as legislation on morally controversial issues.
· It is widespread in politics, for example in neoconservatism and aggressive nationalism.
· And it can result in hostile acts against other countries.
The difficulties arising from people’s inherent diversity are increased by the careless use of broad labels to oversimplify complex subjects: ‘synecdoche’.
· The words ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal’ each encompass a wide range of views – so it would be foolish to dislike a person on the basis of such labels. There might be more important aspects of a person’s character.
· Israeli government policies are not supported by all Jews.
Failure to choose words carefully, to look beneath the labels, can lead to unnecessary disagreements about governance.
Despite people's differences, there are many widely shared values in any society which help to bind it together:
· There is widespread agreement upon what is acceptable behaviour between one person and another.
· Almost everyone prefers law and order to be maintained (although there is scope for disagreement about the enforcement of moral codes).
· A collectivist has no more reason than an individualist to welcome unnecessary State interference. They would disagree, though, about the necessity of some State involvement.
This book highlights areas where disagreement is inevitable and where problems arise from people who try to impose their views on others rather than reach a compromise.
(This is an archive of a page that is part of Edition 4 of the Patterns of Power series of books. The latest versions are at book contents).
[1] Amartya Sen defined “capability”, in chapter 11 of his book The Idea of Justice, as "the opportunity to fulfil ends and the substantive freedom to achieve those reasoned ends" – where the term "ends" means whatever is important to a person (the quotation is from p. 234). In the footnotes to that chapter he refers to several other books on what he describes as “the capability approach”.