The communitarian theory has evolved over the years as a philosophy which places community and social values as the driving forces behind a developed society. Authors as Charles Taylor, Alasdair Macintyre and Amitai Etzioni looked into classical republicanism and civic humanism for inspiration in expanding on a theory that individual life and liberty can only prosper within strong and vibrant communities which as a rule take into consideration and are responsive to shared social values.
Central to communitarian school of thought is the idea of “positive rights” which are guarantees for access to a “common good” which could be for instance education, housing, health care, safe and secure environment, etc. A wide spread objection to that thought is that by focusing on the citizen’s positive rights it is possible to infringe on people’s “negative rights” namely rights to “not” have something done for you. The ongoing discussion about the idea of universal health care is a perfect example of the controversy in having something as individuals’ participation in health care being regulated by the government. Yet it could be argued that having access to affordable health care is so important for the vitality of any society that it could be perceived as something that an elected government could potentially participate in and play a major role in to insure fairness and broad accessibility.
There is an interesting link between the aforementioned communitarian ideas and the thoughts expressed by Jean Jacques Rousseau in his magnum opus “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on Inequality”. The philosopher of the 18th century states that man must enter into a “social contract” with others in order to achieve the highest levels of societal development. He argues that every human being will be naturally “free” if it forfeits the same amount of freedom for the sake of the community and share certain moral “duties” in order to be part of a successful establishment. The idea is that by sharing strong common will, the group receives each individual as part of the indelible whole.
There are numerous examples of challenges that new democracies are facing due to their lack of shared common moral values and a balance between positive and negative rights in the society as such. For the purpose of this study I would like to focus on Bulgaria and Lebanon as two countries with very different cultures and yet rather distinguished problems in the very nature and functionality of their political systems when analyzed in line of the communitarian school of thought.
During its communist past Bulgaria was a typical example of a country governed by a totalitarian regime that imposed severe restrictions on any perceivable rights the population may have. Even such trivial matters as relocation from one town to another had to be approved by the government authorities. No one was allowed to express any type of a dissenting opinion to the official communist party line. After the regime change in 1989 there was a dramatic reversal of the way people lived their lives. Interestingly enough the common thought, that became wide spread, was that liberty meant not paying attention to any type of restrictions that a society would normally impose on its members, for instance respect for others’ ideas and property, being polite and caring. Even criminal behavior became something to be proud of as the society was looking for new ways to live well. The fact is that the people in their search for new values, supposedly opposite to the totalitarian regime, lost touch with some very basic humanistic ideas of behavior. They started to forget that any society requires certain level of morality in order to be successful. For instance general denouncement of vices as theft, robbery, murder, corruption, taking advantage of the weak in order to achieve material gains are rather symptomatic of a harmonious society. The years after 1989 in Bulgaria were rather emblematic of the general decay of the very moral values that had sustained the nation during so many challenging moments in its history. The lack thereof of any shared humanistic vision of the people could explain the country’s difficulties in reaching the type of society that would be considered developed. There is a common misconception that Bulgarians have lost their “human” features due to poverty. I tend to disagree wholeheartedly. Being poor, is not a sin by any means. It also can’t be used as an “excuse” for failures. I would like to give an example of the community I currently reside in. It’s located deep in the mountains of Western North Carolina-the Appalachian region that is considered one of the poorest in the nation. Yet the people are polite and friendly and they wave at each other when passing on the road! That comes to show that poverty by itself is not the reason for lack of manners or propensity for crime. I would never forget an episode from one of my travels to Bulgaria when a taxi driver in Sofia was openly bragging about his opportunity to swindle diesel fuel from his "day" job in the railways and use it for his "moonlight" occupation as a cab driver later. He had no moral trepidations that what he was doing was theft whatsoever. As a matter of fact he sounded quite proud of his resourceful scheme! The reason people in Bulgaria feel “unsuccessful” and deprived of opportunities is in their general failure to adhere to basic common moral values that could be established as essential to the very existence of the society as such. Only after agreeing on a “Social Contract” within the society would Bulgaria or any country for that matter reach a level of development that would allow its people to feel “prosperous” in moral terms, which would eventually lead to financial gains as well. What the politicians of the post-communist Bulgaria will be held responsible for, is not their plunge into blatant corruption and helping establish a culture of cynicism into the country, but for their failure to encourage the population to reach a basic “Social Contract” of shared moral values that would lead to a strong and prosperous society in the long run.
Another example of a country failing in its political development in terms of civic humanism and communitarianism is Lebanon. It is an example of a “contract” gone wrong when focusing on “negative” versus “positive” power in any given society. During its movement for independence Lebanon established the so called “National Pact” of 1943 (later on inscribed in stone in the constitution) that stipulated that the president of the country will always be Maronite Christian, the prime minister will be Sunni Muslim, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will be Shiite Muslim and the deputy speaker will be Greek Orthodox. This provision seemed to be reasonable in guaranteeing the rights of all groups representing the Lebanese population based on historical realities. In fact what occurred was a severe division in the society among ethnic and religious lines. How can a functional democracy be achieved when a Shiite or Sunni Muslim can never be a president or vice versa a Christian can’t think of being a Prime Minister? The followers of communitarian thought claim that in order for a society to be successful in its “Diversity Within Unity” all groups should in this case perceive themselves as being Lebanese first and then Christian, Shiite or Sunni. What the ill fated “National Pact” of 1943 did was divide the population further along sectarian and confessional lines. The civil war that occurred from 1975 to 1990 is just a tip of the iceberg compared to the very existential challenges facing the Lebanese society in the near future. As long as it does not share any type of common moral values and cohesive understanding of political and communal development it would fall into violence and deadlock as the recent establishment of a government dominated by Hezbollah showed.
The studies of countries like Bulgaria and Lebanon could enhance the general understanding of society as such and what forces make it functional and prosperous. The perspective of Communitarianism and Civic Humanism may be controversial but it does give an insight into the very forces that keep any given society together and make it vibrant and prosperous. The fact that individual life and liberty are only possible within a strong and vital community based on shared social and moral values will always resonate deeply in new democracies during their plight for democracy and harmony. Both Bulgaria and Lebanon could achieve their level of prosperity if the political leaderships show signs of understanding of their respective societies and embark on a true course of reconciliation and social advancement. Their success will be judged of course by the future generations. We can only hope it will be something to be proud of and not a failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment