Mill, Democracy and Empire

1. Mill, Democracy and Empire 12 September 2008

2. Representative government is ideally best • Because… • It allows people to protect and promote their interests, whatever those are • It improves people’s characters: makes them less self-interested and more interested in other people, more able to deal with complex problems, and otherwise enlarges their moral and intellectual horizons • In the end, it’s the form of government better positioned to improve human happiness and achievement

3. But there are better and worse forms of representative government • Consider: • Should the electoral system represent only the winners of elections? • Should the electoral system represent everyone equally, regardless of the level of information, narrowness of interests, and general “mental capacity”?

4. Better and worse representative government • A better representative government… • Would ensure that the qualifications of those in government are higher than average • Would prevent the danger of narrowly self-interested legislation (“class legislation”)

5. Better and worse representative government • What does Mill think of what we now call “first past the post” electoral systems? • They do not represent all, only the winners in a particular constituency: they increase the chances of class legislation • They make it difficult for people of great qualifications to go into government • The solution is some form of proportional representation

6. Better and worse representative government • What does Mill think of the “one man, one vote” principle? • On its own, it just leads to class legislation and prevents the voices of the better educated from being heard • The solution is plural voting: more votes for the better educated

7. Better and worse representative government • There’s a tension between • Mill’s faith in the character-building powers of representative government and • Mill’s fear that representative government just leads to class legislation and the rule of the unqualified

8. Is the question of the best form of government “subjective”?

9. When are other forms of government better? • When representative government would not be stable • When some non-representative form of government would work better • Would better create the kinds of characters necessary for representative government, i.e., characters who are generally law-abiding and show concern for other members of the community

10. A problem • What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

11. A problem • In modern terms, Mill is saying that nation-building has to come before democracy, even though democracy may help nation-building

12. When are other forms of government better? • When the people has a generally low level of culture, is greatly ignorant, or has a “defective” national character • Government by foreigners or through the “happy accident of a monarch of genius”

13. When are other forms of government better? • Mill’s line of thought: • Representative government is the ideal we should strive for • Not all cultures are prepared for it • Other cultures can help by ruling those cultures that are not prepared for it • But should they help? Is Britain’s government of India or New Zealand justified?

14. When are other forms of government allowable? • Other forms of government can be allowed only insofar as they make it possible for representative government to eventually take root • For “civilized” peoples, only representative forms of government are ultimately allowable; for “barbarian” peoples, other forms of government are recommended

15. “Barbarians” • Who are the barbarians? • People who are not ready for representative government • Mill thought native peoples in New Zealand and Australia, as well as the peoples of India and China, to be barbarians • The evidence of their being barbarians is in part the lack of representative institutions

16. “Barbarians” • Is progress from the barbarian state possible? • Yes, but also retrogression: the stages of civilization are not permanent • Such progress can happen through purely internal developments in culture or through outside help • Progress involves cultural learning

17. “Civilized” people • Who are civilized peoples? • People who are ready for representative government (even if they do not quite have it yet), having acquired the proper habits and been constituted into nations with a wide horizon of moral concern • There is, however, always room for improvement

18. “Barbarians” • Why are barbarians benefited by being ruled by a superior civilization? How so? • The “superior” civilization can accelerate the process of learning that takes you from one stage to the next by enlarging moral horizons (nation-building), creating the right habits of action, and so on

19. “Barbarians” • But is intervention for this purpose justified? • If barbarian peoples do not have the right habits of character, they may not be trusted: they can harm others, including the interests of “civilized” nations. • In those cases, intervention may be justified; but only if you then rule the country in order to make it ready for representative government

20. “Civilized” states • By contrast, is intervention into the affairs of civilized peoples justified? • Not unless they directly attack another civilized people

21. Parallels in the domestic case • In On Liberty Mill argues that • You should be able to do as you wish, without interference, so long as your actions do not directly harm others: this is the ideal • But some people are not prepared to do this, e.g., children: they might harm themselves and others • Paternalistic intervention is indicated, even required, in those cases