Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Has the social technology of voting and elections ever been completely lost?
It seems to me that while we equate modern Democracy with Elections, strictly speaking there was never a time in recorded European history where elections were unknown, there were periods where its use was limited to certain niches, or where the franchise was limited. From Athens through the Roman Republic to the Papal Conclave and the election of the Holy Roman Emperor or Anglo Saxon elective kingship we have a pretty unbroken line through to when we see the first stirrings of modern parliamentary democracy.
I'm not sure what I think this means, but it feels like some kind of reorientation of my view of history. So I'm curious, is there any place and time where the idea of elections is totally foreign in all cases?
I’m not sure voting was ever really common in the East. At minimum, I can’t think of any instances of it in Japanese history at all. Even now, the vote is more of a bellwether than an actual mechanism for decision-making. When the Meiji architects of modern Japan were selecting their political system, once they had decided on a democracy (because it was the best-recognized on the global stage at the time), and specifically a constitutional monarchy for obvious reasons, they spent the rest of the time searching for a system that would nevertheless keep power in the hands of the elite (themselves) and settled on the Diet of the Prussian Junkers.
If I had to offer a guess - Japanese culture hates open confrontation, and has done since essentially forever. The early Chinese-inflected system of ministers from Heian and earlier was somewhat ornamental, and the real decisions got made behind closed doors in private tea ceremonies and the like. One of my favorite little scenes from Japanese cinema is in Kurosawa’s Kagemusha, in a council of war. Everyone of importance is sitting on their dedicated cushion in highly regulated order of importance from the lord, who heads the affair from a raised platform. They speak in turn, paying superlative respect to their master in precisely flowery language, offering alternatives and arguments with all the structure and stiffness of a five-paragraph essay. Finally, the lord speaks, and with a few laconic phrases dictates his will and the plan of action. Of course, the real planning happened the previous evening after dinner, with the generals talking it over in casual language while simply standing in a circle, at which point they assigned roles for the next day’s performance.
Communal decisions, certainly. People need to be pointed in one direction to make progress, and they need to agree to align. But voting is notably visible and combative. Two sides need to make their case in public, and it really is win or lose. People who worry about losing the election start doing dangerous and erratic things. There’s no polite and mutually congenial resolution available, except through the ritual mercy of the victors. Of course non-voting has its faults too, but voting is far from a human universal - why is it then so popular in Europe?
It has to do with the way European societies were structured in the deep past. Free men who could serve in the army under their own volition(including providing their own weapons and armor) received social privileges for doing so, including the ability to vote(either directly or for elders who would represent their interests in front of the aristocracy). Of course a vote counted for more if you could provide better armor, a warhorse, etc.
In the Roman Republic this was quite well codified, with the people voting in blocks based on what kind of soldier they would serve as on campaign- each block had the same weight, voting as a collective, but naturally there were far more people in the poorest block(who would serve as rowers in the navy or skirmishers on land) than in the wealthiest block(who would serve as cavalrymen), but the middle blocks who served as heavy infantry were probably the most influential. In Athens the system is not written down as well, but seems similar- there's commentaries about how the rabble's political representation being limited was a good thing, because they were forever voting to go to war for no particular reason- the navy paid rowers better than the civilian economy paid unskilled labor(it's unclear if this is due to steadier work or higher sticker price wages). And of course the norse sagas are just replete with discussions of the thing.
Lots of western society differences are rooted in this original structure- steak being the prestige food is arguably due to carrying a knife everywhere being the mark of a well to do man, as a remnant of the actual legal requirement for armigerousness as a condition of being wealthy and free(in non-western cuisines big pieces of meat are fairly rare, even for classes that can afford it- they're smaller pieces served over rice or in pastries or whatever). The second amendment is also arguably descended from this idea. It's probably something that goes all the way back to the yamnaya and was lost/developed differently in Iran and India- after all, Germanic and Italic and Greek peoples are not from the same branch of the Indo-European family tree.
This is a reasonable explanation, although I think it buries the lede just a little - the real premise being covered over is the “free men.” Their implicit ability to join or foil any particular military action is reigned in their explicit vote. And for some reason that legal fiction persists under the extreme authority of the paterfamilias! Why would the vote not be delegated to him? In an abstract sense, it seems very practical, but apparently it was not in the running.
On the flip side, the Japanese had military service as a sort of corvee labor in the distant past, for suppressing the natives still on the islands. But at a much later point, during the warring states period, the increasing militarism of the region percolated down to the farm level and generated a system of “farmer samurai” (or really, petty barons) who would mobilize independent of lords. That could have been a turning point for the vote, as the prerequisites are in place, but the warlord Toyotomi established a rule forbidding farmers from owning swords or sword-owners from farming. But the question there is: why was he able to make that rule? Only because it did not particularly offend anyone’s sensibilities - because for the most of them, they didn’t particularly want autonomy and the vote it would imply.
Culture is a hell of a thing. Probably you’re right that something akin to the free association of warriors was central to the old Indo-Europeans, maybe as an expression of the liberty and power of horse-ownership, but the fascinating thing is how powerfully that sentiment has persisted. I have a feeling that culture is the great unexplained, because nebulous and unmeasurable, factor of history, and the genius who finally cracks it open to even elementary analysis will gain superb explanatory power over the past. So far I’ve only read one book which attempts this with any seriousness, but the author admits his own limitations and wisely stops before doing anything too foolish…
What’s the book? It sounds like an interesting read.
The Western World and Japan, George Sansom. At some point I’ll have to write a review on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link