All laws are human in origin, the institution of society is, as Cornelius Castoriades1 has trenchantly put it, always imaginary; imaginary in the sense that it is created by the individuals of society and which, conversely, does not and cannot exist prior to society, as an objective, universal, "natural" constant, which shapes and determines interpersonal relations and rules broadly understood.
A free society is one that uses its laws, its institutions, for its own service, and abides by them for as long as they are useful for its preservation. In other words for as long as these laws and institutions foster justice, freedom and the welfare of individuals in society; and for as long as they exist to the point where no one would oppose them so vehemently so as to rather opt for the complete obliteration of the social structure, than for the continuation of these imaginary constructs. Such a society of individuals is autonomous, in the sense that it rules itself, and most importantly, it knows that it rules itself.
| Brussels. Outside the European Parliament. By Protesilaos Stavrou CC BY-SA-NC |
Consequently these unfree societies become alienated from the very institutions they have at some point in time created; so alienated from them, that they grow unaware of the fact that the laws and institutions are imaginary—that they are theirs.
A society operating in such a pervasive ignorance, a heteronomous society, is slavishly obeying the rules it established and the institutions it founded, to the extent where legal and political determinism becomes the main feature of social conduct, as a primordial alienating factor of the individuals from their own creations, since it is rules that govern people instead of people living with rules.
In our very European case during the eurocrisis we have all seen how certain macroeconomic and fiscal rules—imaginary as they undoubtedly are—have become the very source of alienation of the individuals in Europe, from their own institutions. We the people of Europe, or at least the people who reside in the euro area, never had the chance to ask whether the rules concerning public debt, budget deficit, inflation rate and long term interest rates, were either just or sufficient in bringing social harmony, in preserving justice and in expanding liberty.
In our case the law has been accepted without any further discussion on its actual legitimacy in as far as social peace is concerned; and in its name, in the name of some arbitrary, simplistic and largely uneconomic rules, we have seen conditions being imposed on people, through the use of coercion, in desperate conditions, to radically reshape society, once again in line with another fictitious "growth scheme".
The question, or rather the possibility of the question, of whether the Stability and Growth Pact (and all other pacts that follow the same logic, e.g. fiscal compact) in particular and the overall Euro architecture in general, were just or not, was never offered to us directly and explicitly. This is either due to the intergovernmental character of European integration which effectively rules out citizens, by placing "national" (state/statist) interests above citizen/social ones; or to the complexity and indecipherability of the system, which can certainly be considered a concomitant of the quasi-confederal European Union edifice.
The plain fact concerning the macroeconomic and fiscal rules of the Monetary Union, is that the economy is a profoundly complex system of interrelations and transactions, which can never be narrowed down to a few, not even to many, holistic aggregates. It is preposterous to speak of such arbitrary rules, as products of any sort of science, for the very reason that they draw out most of the factors that determine an ever-changing, radically uncertain, economy.
To see the human world through the lens of some fixed aggregates, is to introduce determinism in the very method of understanding, by treating such aggregates not only as ontological entities—which obviously they are not—but also, and most importantly, by considering them as guiding lights and pseudo-sacrosanct rules that no group of people may ever transcend or violate; and in our case, if such rules, incorporated into law, are ever violated, retribution shall await the "sinners".
It is in effect, in the name of such chimerical rules, of such makeshifts, that we witness at the heart of the eurocrisis an egregious injustice, which either manifests itself as undemocratic edicts that come from the troika or from some technocracy concocting schemes in the ivory towers of some European capital; or which operates as the alienating, heteronomic, factor in European integration, where citizens—those who really grant authority to imaginary institutions (in the sense that "the emperor has no clothes")—are completely, or effectively, excluded from the decisions that shape and determine their lives and conduct.
If we are to live in a better world, if we want Europe to be a land of peace and prosperity broadly understood, if Europe is to be a meaningful and lofty ideal; we must all be aware of the fact that currently we exist in a system of heteronomy; a system that has been divorced from our will, scrutiny and power to change or to shape it, in any comprehensive sense. We live in a milieu of heteronomy, in that we are determined by our imaginary institutions–institutions that are growing exterior to us; we are subservient to them, instead of utilizing them as means to our ends, for justice, liberty and welfare.
If it is autonomy, self-rule, that we wish to have; if we want to be masters of our selves and to be conscious of the fact that institutions are always ours and are always imaginary constructs, subject to our will for change; we will ask for another Europe, another political order that not only allows some margin for reform, but so enamored it is with change, or with the possibility of change, that it places it as its quintessential element and defining narrative.
The eurocrisis has ample examples of such a profound injustice and deprivation of liberty. Now we can barely reshape our laws and institutions. As a matter of fact we witness them exerting pressure on us and seeking to change us as per their caprice, contrary to our desires and ends. No wonder people across the land of Europe are indignant, each for their own reasons while all can trace their unrest to the inherent injustice, alienation and heteronomy of the laws and institutions that govern us and determine our conduct; an injustice that has put us all on a race to the bottom against ourselves.
Will this ever end? No matter the case, please leave the window of doubt always open.
Article source: http://www.protesilaos.com/2012/11/freesociety-eurocrisis-heteronomy.html
Protesilaos Stavrou—Analyses on European Union politics and political economy by Protesilaos Stavrou is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. All original works are hosted on www.protesilaos.com
The full scope of this license may be read at www.protesilaos.com/p/rights.html, while further permissions can be requested at www.protesilaos.com/p/contact.html
The nation states of the West have always prided themselves on their democracy and their democratic institutions. However in reality they have never had true democracy only more so than most other nations. True democracy is when power flows from the bottom to the top that has never happened as the flow has only ever been partially that way. In the last few decades because we have not evolved beyond representative democracy that we built up over some centuries we now have what can only be described as representative dictatorship. Adding a further layer of government the EU under these circumstances was always bound to erode democracy even more. Coupled with the ever enlarging of the role and scope of the state and putting together many nation states that have different perspectives on what are and what are not just laws is a recipe for building a structure that will only be able to sustain itself by more and more authoritarian means. Orwell was right in his vision he just got the date wrong.
ReplyDeleteIndeed we must have a more critical approach to representative democracy. As I have written in at least two analyses (see here and here), this system of government was desirable when it was juxtaposed to the authoritarianism of the monarch/aristocracy and in more recent times, if contrasted to soviet-style socialism.
ReplyDeleteToday we need to move beyond that system, as it has become top-down, rigid and unjust. Not only we need to move to a more direct, inclusive and simple democratic political order, but we must also guarantee that the liberty of individuals is never compromised to political opportunism.
The EU started wrong and it proceeds on a path that will never yield optimal results for all of us (it will be great for relatively few though).
An exceptionally well-argued piece, full of clarity and insight. The assumption by many of a 'human' entitlement to equality is a muddled one; but the fundamental importance of equality before the law should be the starting point of every decent civilisation.
ReplyDeleteLeft-libertarian is a difficult position to hold, but an honourable one. Excellent stuff.
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/euroblown-killing-time-is-an-oxymoron/
I like the strong rhetoric of this blogpost, but I don't quite get the concrete point you are making. Actually, there is no constitutional rule in the EU which couldn't be changed and no political actor who hasn't been elected by an either direct or indirect democratic vote and who couldn't be removed by the same procedure. So, where is that sensation of heteronomy (whose existence I do not doubt) coming from?
ReplyDeleteSome weeks ago, I have argued on my own blog that the main problem is that we have too many checks and balances in the EU system. There are too many veto players on any major decision (notably when it's about treaty changes...), which makes it extremely difficult to assign political responsibilities - whereas at the same time we are lacking a parliamentary opposition, which would bring forward alternatives in the public discourse and thereby offer the population a real choice between different political options.
As a consequence, what we need is a far-reaching parliamentarization of the European political system: reducing the influence of the European Council and abolishing national veto rights (also in constitutional, i.e. treaty questions), while boosting the power of the European Parliament. Would you agree to this?
Indeed all constitutional rules can be changed (with the exception of the Republic of Cyprus' as far as I know), but the point of heteronomy is more profound than the purely legal sphere, as important as that undoubtedly is. It is above all cultural, political and institutional, in the broadest sense of each term. I might be more precise on this in the near future, as I do understand that now it can appear to be quite vague.
ReplyDeleteOn the veto powers and what you recommend as a feasible solution, I certainly agree with your point, in the sense that it is something that can happen in the near future, at least theoretically. And since I know, at least in part, your position on the broader EU debate, I assume you incorporate your proposal on an overall federalization-democratization of the system, which I also find much more desirable than the status quo.
Since you mentioned your blog, I need to tell you that I know about it since a few months now, but the language barrier (and google translate) does not help—unfortunately I do not understand German.
Finally a man named Gerald, whose surname and other information I will not include here, once told me that he knows you and would be meeting you—I think he was referring to you. I do not know if you happened to meet him after all. If so and if you feel like sharing your thoughts with me about it on a more private space, please consider sending me an email info@protesilaos.com
Thank you and thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteYou've got mail :)
ReplyDelete