民主主義の危機に素人が振り返る、「共和政」の名著8冊。
部屋を整理していたら、なんとも懐かしい政治学の授業シラバスが。
今考えると、大学で民主主義を学んでいる時、日々なんの批判も無く受け入れている政治体制が、ここまで脆く崩れ去るものだと思わなかった。
↑現代民主主義が、いかに民主的な方法（選挙）で内部から崩れるか、レビツキー・ジブラットの素晴らしい名著が！ぜひご一読ください。
思い出すのは2016年の春頃、イタリアで参加した国際会議の休憩時間に、アースラ・プラスニック（Ursula Plassnik）というオーストリア元外務大臣とコーヒーを飲んでて、投げかけられた一言。
「一体何が起こってるのか、あなた方の世代に聞きたいくらい。どうすれば良いのか、私たちには全くわからないのよ。」
かく言うアースラは、（たぶん）EU統合にも役割を果たした人物（であろう笑）。
EUというヨーロッパの夢を守って、シェンゲンを閉じなければ、国内の政治的コントロールを失う。でも自国の民主主義を健全に守るためには、シェンゲンを閉じ、EUという夢を諦めなければない。まさに究極のジレンマ。
その後も、ヨーロッパには「移民排斥」を主張する右翼政党が力を伸ばし、イギリスが国民投票でEU脱退を決め、遂にアメリカでは壁建設を掲げたポピュリストのトランプ政権が成立。
こんな時代に生きながら、改めて民主主義ってなんなのか、共和政ってなんなのか、少し考えを巡らせてみたいと思いつつ、卒業後起業してからは、しばらく読書を離れて、あっという間に5年が立ってしまいました。
「せっかく立ち止まれたんだから、本でも読んでインプットしなー！」と多くの方からメッセージをいただいたので、勉強も兼ねて、自室に積まれた本の中から、以下の8冊選んで読み返しました。そして、せっかくなのでまとめてみました。
＊＊＊
今回読んだ、部屋に積まれたままになってた8冊。共和政を考える上では避けて通れない古典（のはず！笑）
＊＊＊
単に要約するのもつまらないので、ペーパー風にまとめてみました。テーマは、シラバスの一行目の問いを拝借し、「建国時に思い描かれたアメリカ共和政の姿」について。
The republican tradition prioritizes the common good over the personal interest, and the self-governance of the community and cultivation of the virtue of its constituents over individual liberty. It demands that citizens to be active, on the assumption that high levels of civic engagement are necessary to protect against government abuses and to provide citizens with an outlet to satisfy their human yearning of creating a shared public good. In this sense, both Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton are republican thinkers who recognize the importance of republican virtue and liberty in a well-functioning republic. They share the view that virtue is not an inherent human quality but rather needs to be developed, and thought through ways in which citizens can nourish a strong a sense of engagement in a community and behave with a strong interest in the common good over the pursuit of their personal interests. However, their visions diverge in how to accomplish this end. On one hand, Jefferson aimed at a society where citizens are self-sufficient and cultivate civic virtue through agrarian living. On the other hand, Hamilton saw the necessity of promoting manufacture-based economy in order to preserve the autonomy of nation against external threat, and suggested to unite citizens under the sense of national pride and patriotic sentiment instead. In this following section, I will first examine the differences in their visions of the society in relation to how it contributes to cultivate the civic virtue among citizens of a republic. I then attempt to reconcile the two visions by elaborating that Jeffersonian ideal is not necessarily impossible to realize under the Hamiltonian society. In fact, Hamilton’s argument rather seems to be a practical means to achieve Jeffersonian ideal while facing some constraints in reality.
Reflecting on Roman Republic in in the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli emphasized the critical importance of self-rule and self-sufficient citizens in a well-functional republic. Through cultivating their own land, he claimed, citizens nourish their love to the land and the sense of belonging to their nation, and thus the republic will consist of virtuous citizens who are deeply concerned with the pursuit of the common good over their individual interests. It is exactly on this line of thought that Jefferson, in his Query XIX of Notes on the State of Virginia, makes an impassioned argument for the pre-eminence of rural, agrarian lifestyle and virtue in the composition of a stable and non-corrupt republic.
Looking at the conditions of factory workers in England after the industrial revolution, Jefferson was concerned with the evil of bad labor condition in manufacturing sector in industrial cities, such as Manchester. The character of their work is rather based on slavish obedience—because they work for somebody else in exchange for wage, citizens can never be free and independent, thus cannot nourish a qualification to be good virtuous citizens. To Jefferson, this economic dependence is a threat to a republic for two reasons. First, the dependent citizens are less likely to develop the capacity to come to a judgment and possess their own opinion on political matters. Because of the continuous slavish obedience and lack of independence, they are not trained to take stance on their own or actively participate in a public debate, and hence the civic virtue cannot be nourished amongst citizens. Second, even if they do have a particular stance on political agenda, they are not free to address their opinions actively because of their dependence on a third party.
Jefferson also shared a Montesquieu’s concern regarding luxury and inequality and their consequences in maintaining a well-functional republic. The virtue of the republic is the love for equality, frugality, and self-sacrifice to their homeland, and they “[limit] the desire to possess to the mindfulness required by that which is necessary for one’s family, and even by that which is superfluous for one’s homeland.” (Montesquieu 43) As long as luxury is persistent in a republic, the spirit “turns to the interest of the individual” from the common good, and the republic collapses as a result the decline of civil virtue. (Montesquieu 98) Jefferson observed the commercial lifestyle of England generating such inequality, and thus endangering the republican regime.
It is for those two reasons that Jefferson valued agrarian lifestyle for its self-sufficient nature. First, the yeoman farmer best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting city influence. Farmers are not working for somebody in exchange for wage, but rather self-supporting themselves. The self-sufficient nature of work, cultivating their own land, nourishes the citizens’ royalty to their own land, and in turn, themselves. Contrary to how the commercial lifestyle fails to nourish civic virtue through dependence, the independent and self-sufficient nature of agrarian lifestyle develops the capacity of citizens to make their own judgment, to actively participate in public debate, and to be an active member in civil society. Second, the self-sufficient nature of agrarian lifestyle prevents the extreme inequality that may be caused as a result of commerce, and “the love for equality, frugality, and self-sacrifice to their homeland” can be nourished among citizens. Jefferson thus believes that the republic could develop the civic virtue—capacity and willingness of citizens to pursue the common good over their personal interests—through the promotion of agrarian living, that is a critical component of a well-functional republic.
While Jefferson’s primary focus was rather theoretical and on the life-style of citizens, Hamilton’s concern rather came from a realistic threat that America of his age faced. Instead of focusing on the individual-level independence as Jefferson did, Hamilton starts his argument for industrial society from the importance of national-level independence and autonomy of America from its rival countries in Europe. Sharing the same concern with Jefferson that the self-rule is essential in a well-functional republic, Hamilton sees the necessity for America to develop a capacity to stand up against foreigners.
In Report on the Subject of Manufactures, Hamilton repeatedly points out that the strong manufacturing sector is related not only to the country’s wealth and economic prosperity, but also to the autonomy and security of the nation. He argued that the inability to self-support food, clothing and shelter as well as the means of self-defense made it difficult for America to continue fighting the War of Independence, and this is what the federal government needs to improve as soon as possible. (Hamilton 691-692) Facing the eminent threat from the remaining presence of foreign territory in the eighteen century American continent, Hamilton’s primary purpose in planning to establish an industrial economy based on a strong manufacturing sector was not necessarily for the sake of economic development and to maximize gross national product, but in order to preserve the autonomy of the nation—economics was the handmaiden of politics but not the other way around. (Sandel 138)
Hamilton’s concern, however, does not necessarily imply that he disregarded a kind of civic virtue that Jefferson envisioned. In the Federalist No. 6 through 10, he shares his concern that the real threat comes to the republic comes from within: fraction. Unless citizens can unite under the pursuit of a common good, the republic may collapse as a result of internal conflict among those fractions pursuing their own interest. Instead of trying to cultivate the civic virtue through agrarian living as Jefferson envisioned, Hamilton thereby sought the civic virtue of commercial republic in the sense of unity based on national pride and patriotic sentiment. By establishing a strong, externally respected republic through the promotion of manufacturing industry, he aims to unite its citizens internally under the national pride, and cultivate the civic virtue and public spirit to serve for the common good.
So far, we have seen the two different visions of society pushed forward by the two republican thinkers, agrarian and industrial-commercial, and how they seek to nourish civic virtue among citizens in each context. In a section below, I attempt to reconcile the two arguments by arguing that the Hamiltonian vision does not necessarily conflict with the fundamental goal to nourish citizens with a capacity and willingness to pursue the common good over their personal interests in Jeffersonian ideal, but diverge from it as a result of trying to cope with various constraints in realizing such ideal in the real world.
First, regarding the Jefferson’s concern on dependence, I argue that the external independence of a republic is a prerequisite for the independence in the individual level that Jefferson envisions—the latter cannot be sustained without the presence of the former. Both thinkers agree that the dependence is a threat to civic virtue of citizens, and in turn to a well-functional republic, for the reasons argued earlier. However, in order to preserve the autonomy of the republic in which Jeffersonian agrarian society can take place, the republic first needs to secure itself from the external threat and to have to be independent from other countries. In the modern world where maintaining security is costly, it is impossible to sustain a military power to secure a republic without having a strong economic foundation. One may alternatively seek to achieve a strong economic position by exporting the agrarian goods rather than promoting manufacturing. But this is also vulnerable as it can easily be threatened by foreign policy of other countries: such as the restrictions on free trade imposed by the British mercantile system. (Sandel 137) Even if we were to aim for an agrarian society where each citizen is self-sufficient and the civic virtue is nourished, we have to rely on industrial sector to certain extent.
Another concern of Jefferson’s, that of excessive luxury, can be accounted in the commercial republic as well. Montesquieu was aware that the commercial spirit and the virtue of self-sacrifice toward the common good do not necessarily go together. In order for the wealth created through commerce not to corrupt the civic virtue of its citizens, the spirit of commerce needs to come “with the spirit of frugality, economy, moderation, work, wisdom, tranquility, order, and rule.” (ES 48) In this sense, commercial republic presupposes citizens with an interest in common good, and admits that the nature of commerce itself, unlike that of agrarian work, does not promote such civic virtue. Unlike Montesquieu who claims that the republic needs to be small for the citizens to feel united, Hamilton attempts to nourish the sense of common good through establishing a strong economy in which each citizen can enjoy the economic benefit to some extent. Through embedding in citizens the sense of national identity as a stakeholder of this economic system, he attempts to create a sense of unity among citizens who is capable and willing to serve for the common good.
Another way to reconcile the existence of industrial sector with Jeffersonian sense of virtue is through education. An early attempt of this can be seen in the case of Lowell, where workers did not simply work for wage but rather various institutions is provided to cultivate their virtue and develop capacity and willingness to serve for the common good. Although the case of Lowell may have been too paternalistic, the public education in general can serve to the similar ends—to nourish a sense of belonging to a community and the willingness to serve for the common good, as well as train citizens to develop a capacity for active civic engagement. For example, a nation can implement a public education system where students are trained to develop their own views and engage in public debate through mandatory civics classes, or encourages a sphere of public debate to be provided elsewhere just as Michael Sandal tries to accomplish through expanding “Justice” project outside of classroom.
Last but not the least, Hamilton sees the representative government and its checks-and-balances function as a “safety” when all citizens cannot fully nourish the civic virtue. Even if we lived in an ideal agrarian society as Jefferson envisions, we cannot deny the possibility that the action of some less-virtuous citizens may be driven by their personal interests and ambitions and endangers the pursuit of the common good. This concern is more eminent in commercial republic that Hamilton envisions, where at least some citizens do not engage in agrarian living that cultivates virtue. In the end, it may be too much to hope every citizen is perfectly virtuous no matter how hard we try to cultivate such quality among citizens. However, by implementing the institutions of representative government along with checks-and-balances functions, the risks of those less-virtuous citizens to ruin the republican liberty may be mitigated. Even with the presence of those with less concern with the public good, political leaders who are more concerned with the public good can lead the nation, and representative system, such as electoral institutions, bicameral system and the rule of law, can increase the chance of those more virtuous citizens to be in the key positions in politics in theory.
Hamilton’s intention was not to argue for a completely industrial society without any agrarian community. His theory is neither inconsistence nor unsympathetic with Jefferson’s concerns on dependence and luxury, but rather points out the seeming necessity that both industrial and agrarian community coexist in the same nation, so that the nation itself is self-sustained and a kind of civic virtue that Jefferson emphasized can be nourished among its citizens. In such society, some citizens who engage in non-agrarian activity may not be able to fully cultivate civic virtue through agrarian living as Jefferson envisions. However, this can be complemented by developing the capacity and willingness of citizens to pursue the common good through public education, as well as the checks-and-balances function of the representative government.
＊＊＊
安直な感想をば。
感想①HLABの「note」なのに、全く関係ないって？いや、そんなことありません。こんな面白い話を世界の大学に通うお兄ちゃんお姉ちゃんが教えてくれるのが、サマースクールのゼミなんだよ、高校生諸氏！
感想②あくまで素人が趣味で書いてるので、内容や解釈の正確性は保証しません。政治学者の友人多すぎますが、異論は受け付けません（笑）久しぶりに大学に戻った気分でエッセー書いて楽しかったので自己満足。
感想③やっぱ書いてアウトプットしないと、古典は全く頭に入ってこない。そして改めて、フェデラリストとかESとか名著だなあー。
感想④初回に、古典セレクトしたのが大間違いだったわ。難解すぎて、（もち斜め読みしてるけど）むちゃ時間かかるわ。ということで、最後は、尊敬するアフィリエイト・ブロガーがたどり着いた真理に致しました。
なんでブログ書かないのか、めっちゃわかるわ。
これ、純粋にめんどいわ。
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？