Ever since humans began to federate, there has been intense conflict over systems of government. Early civilizations often centralized power in the hands of a single ruler, believing that strong, decisive leadership was essential for maintaining order and stability. This pattern was evident in empires and kingdoms across the world, from the Pharaohs of Egypt to the Emperors of China. As societies grew more complex and interconnected, some discontent with autocratic rule became realized. Some cultures experimented with shared governance, where power was distributed among a broader group. This was notably seen in small city-states like Ancient Athens, where democracy first took root, allowing citizens to have a direct say in their government. Similarly, Venice developed a unique system of republican governance that balanced power among its elite families.
As history progressed, these ideas of distributed power gained traction beyond small city-states. The Enlightenment era sparked a wave of philosophical thought that challenged the divine right of kings and advocated for the rights of individuals. By the 19th and 20th centuries, these ideas had permeated broader society, leading to the establishment of democratic systems in many nations around the world. Democracies evolved, sometimes through peaceful reform, other times through revolution, as people sought to create governments that were more accountable and representative of the will of the populace. However, this vision of democracy has clearly not been embraced equally in every country. There are regions and cultural identities in the which have never sponsored a democratic form of government in their entire history, such as Russia or China. This begs the question: Is democracy truly possible everywhere?
To answer this question, it's essential to first consider how nations have evolved throughout history. A common mistake is viewing the past kingdoms and empires through the modern notion of a nation-state. Today, countries have clear borders, citizens are well-documented, and taxation is strict and direct. However, this level of organization is a recent development. In ancient and medieval times, borders were often vague, with large, undefined areas between regions. Most people, especially those in rural areas, were isolated from government affairs. Limited technology made the world less connected, causing governments to struggle with projecting power. In the case of highly centralized empires, control was often confined to major cities or trade routes, leaving the countryside largely absent of state influence. The alternative to this was the feudal system, in which the central authority delegated power to regional governors or lords. While this model allowed for more direct control of everyone in the state, it left the center of power relatively weak, drastically reducing the nation's cohesion.
The only way to achieve such a result was the command of an autocratic figure with absolute power. This concentration of authority allowed for swift decision-making and unchallenged enforcement, essential in maintaining order across dispersed regions. Take the example of Rome. It survived for over 400 years as a republic, but its rapid conquest of new areas and cultures in the second and third centuries BC exposed vulnerabilities. At the onset of the first century, Gaius Marius was re-elected to the consulship six times despite the one-term restriction. His rival, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, escalated the instability by marching on Rome with his army and seizing control of the government. Just a few decades later, the republic was transformed into an empire due to the actions of Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavian. The ability of these leaders to retain the loyalty of their armies after defying the state highlighted the republic's lack of control. The transition to autocracy prevented political instability for a few centuries, but even this powerful control ultimately faltered. The empire was reorganized under the tetrarchy, effectively being split into four sections with independent centers of power.
Like the Roman Empire, many states were autocratic for the simple reason that it was the only way to maintain cohesion. This was especially the case in vast empires like in China, or isolated nations with divisive geography. Such settings exacerbate the issues with connectivity and power projection, making a strong central authority the only viable option. Longstanding and powerful autocracies inevitably make their mark on culture over hundreds of years. As a result, some nations have deeply ingrained tendencies that inhibit their ability to transition to democracy. The advent of new technologies throughout the 18th and 19th centuries dramatically increased the ability of the government to project power. This allowed democracy to emerge as a viable system of government for a greater number of nations, as a dictatorial figure was no longer necessary. However, this was still insufficient for underdeveloped and poorly connected nations like Russia, which was too expansive for a weak democratic government. Such nations have a deep-rooted culture of centralized power, which becomes intertwined with national identity and governance traditions.
However, technology has advanced to a point where the need for such rigid control is no longer necessary, and it is only present due to inertia. Over time, these technological advances will gradually erode the entrenched autocratic tendencies, and the benefits of shared governance and individual freedoms will become apparent. Eventually, democracy will emerge as the prevailing system of government, even in regions historically dominated by autocratic rule.
Related Posts
