The Evolution of Governance

The origins of the concept of free will (and, as an accretion, freedom) is housed within antiquity. In western history, the debate over freedom began in fifth century BC Greece. From this origin in ancient Greece, a notable philosophical debate ensued (continuing into the contemporary era) on the definition of freedom, or if freedom is merely an illusion imparted on humanity by biology or some cosmological phenomenon. During the approximate 2500 years of debate, various political movements implemented this concept of freedom in their legal structures. In Ancient Persia, the citizenry enjoyed freedom of religion, liberation from chattel labour, and equal legal status between the sexes. The various ethnic and religious populations within the Indian Maurya Empire were treated with egalitarian fairness, under the reign of Emperor Ashoka the Great. Ashoka even extended this treatment to prisoners of war, even going so far as to condemn the generations of such prisoners. The Roman Republic and Roman Empire, also, had systems of liberty that were extended to Roman citizens. This tradition of government securing freedom for its people extends to this day within various constitutional republics and monarchies.

However, the effectiveness all of these systems of liberal governance are finite. Eventually, each liberal government leads their respective citizenry to various forms of oppression, totality, and control. If the idea of freedom has been so captivating that the history of world is filled with forms of governance allowing their populace to freely determine the course their individual lives, what force is so intense that governments of freedom transform into systems of total control? Does the allure of power corrupt the minds of leadership intensely and universally that leaders are willing to oppress those in their culture? Is the idea of freedom so repugnant to humanity that humanity will always resist freedom, though the idea is enticing for models of initial governance?

As with many social phenomena in human communities, more than one force, variable, or belief modifies human attitude. No more is this variability clearer than in the ever changing moral convictions the world over.

Through these ever changing tides of political, moral, and social ideals, one constant remains. Mankind. By way of this constant, the mechanisms of this particular variance may be understood. Hominids (specifically the genus homo) possibly finds its roots in a small, seven million year-old primate known as Sahelanthropus tchadensis. This sub-Saharan tree dwelling mammal could not have possibly comprehend that its behaviours (and those of its dozens of specieal successors) would impact the society of its sole decedent in the genus homo (Homo sapiens - humans).

To truly understand the mortality of personal liberty in societies, one must first comprehend the broad history of societal interactions of humanity, stemming as far back to Sahelanthropus. For the vast majority of its seven million year history, the human community has lived as many other mammalian species do. That is to say, in either a paternal or maternal communal environment, where everything (including sexual partners) may be shared (to various degrees) with other members in the commune to enhance the survival of the commune as a whole. These communes had no concept of money (at least as humanity currently conceptualizes currency), civilization, monarchy, or free will. Instead of the subjugation by authoritarian governments, humanity's ancestors were enslaved by the reality of survival.

As the genus homo evolved into higher forms approaching modern humanity, the barbarism of an animalistic society began to dissolve, and tribal organization began to take precedent. While astonishingly different from animalism, the tribe still shared many attributes with its antecedent society. The tribe was still communal and was still under the constant pressure of physical survival. Tribalism fundamentally differed from animalism in that the tribe had a grasp on technology (fire, complex shelters, the wheel, etc.), agriculture (animal husbandry and farming), and, most radically, was able to begin the arduous journey into the abstract (religion and morality).

As human beings evolved, so did the human society. Around 8000 BC, humans began shedding the life of constant mobility (a norm in tribalism and animalism) for permanent settlements. Although these first permanent settlements were inhabited by tribal peoples, this attachment to the tribe was to be quickly shed in less than 2000 years. Around 6500 BC, tribes around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in contemporary Iraq began to coalesce into large cities, in order to more efficiently plow the land for stable agrarian society. Unlike the single-leader system of the tribe, this community of tribes was led by a counsel of chieftains who oversaw the governance of the community. It was during this time that humanity first encountered its first modern dilemma, the decrease in egalitarian policies and increased social stratification (possibly caused by clashing tribal religious beliefs and social norms). Just as Sahelanthropus couldn't foresee the future, the people in this period of aggregating tribes (known as the Ubaid period) could not have foretold that their strife was the beginning of the first human civilization, Sumer.

Unlike in the community led by chieftains, governance in Sumer came in the form of a city-state led monarch, the first of which being En-Men-Barage-Si who ascended to power around 2500 BC. His position as king was validated by his constituency as having been derived from their concept of the divine. Later in Sumeria, humanity would generate its first written language, mathematical system, and currency (in the form of silver and/or barley). The Sumerian civilization was so successful, the population of Sumer grew to a size between 800,000 to 1.5 million.

The civilization of Sumer gave way to the Empire of Akkad (established around 2350 BC), which governed the areas now containing Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, southern and southeastern regions of Turkey, and eastern regions of Iran. The Empire differed from Sumer in that all peoples within its boundaries were led by a single monarch, instead of individual city-state leaders (the first such Akkadian leader being Sargon of Akkad).

As did Sumer fall, the Akkadian Empire fell in 2154 BC and was replaced by Empire of Assyria (first led by King Tudiya) and, later, the Empire of Babylon in 1894 BC (first led by Sumu-Abum). Humanity first saw its code of laws (by way of the latter empire) under King Hammurabi in 1754 BC. Each of these Arabian kingdoms were led by monarchs who declared a direct connection to the divine as the validation of their position in society.Thus, Sumer, the Akkadian Empire, the Assyrian Empire, and the Babylonian Empire laid the foundation for a tradition of divinely-inspired monarchical rule, which persists to this very day the world over.

The first non-monarchical system of governance, was established in 508 BC in the city-state of Athens. Unlike the oligarchs and monarchs of the time, Cleisthenes (the first leader of Athens), sought to create a system where the tribes of Athens could combine and freely elect their leadership. He abolished the patronymic system of leadership (leadership succession by way of ancestory),and established a demonymic system of leadership (people from a deme (community) would select representation). He also reformed the Athenian Boule (governmental counsel) to allow 50 representatives from each tribe (numbering 100 at the time), and established the sortition that randomly placed Athenians into positions in government. In the spirit of the bouletic oath Cleisthenes created (stating a representative in the Boule would advise legislation that would best serve the people of Athens), the Boule would submit legislation to be voted into effect (by the Athenian public) 40 times per year. Cleisthenes named his new system of governance, "isonomia," meaning, "equality through the law." The Cleisthenian style of government was, in and of itself, an attractive means of government, and has persisted throughout the history and still exists in parts to this day.

With a terse history of governance reviewed, several key features emerge as key in our contemporary struggle with liberty. Foremostly, the history of human society has been vastly dominated with tribalism and animalilsm. This is to be expected, as it allowed the genus homo to survive upwards of seven million years. The relevance this has to our currant quandaries is, humans are instinctively attracted to these forms of society. Just has most humans have innate arachnophobia, tribalistic-like social forms are preferred due to its presence in the foundation of human survival. That is not to say tribalism is inherently better than other forms of governance (as civility failed to exist within the tribal system), but this primitive form of society has been the standard social structure for humankind upwards of 6,990,000 years.

Likewise, monarchies have been the most successful form of governance in the post-tribal era. The innate value of the monarch in human civilization is to be hailed, as it severed the congenital adherence of humanity to tribalism. Not only did monarchies sever this tie to a dramatically more primitive time, but they introduced the concept of currency, coalesced different groups of people, and survived as a valid mode of governance for 4517 years.

It should come at no surprise then the aprehensity that humanity has with isonomiatic (or republican) systems of governance. The history of this 2525 year old style of administration is spotty to say the least. With republics falling to monarchies, oligarchies, and totalitarian dictatorships; being a cynosure for intense internal strife (not to imply that republics are the only form of government to suffer this malignancy); to suffering from geographic isolation. Therefore, the ideas of a free society (and thereby a free government) is quite disconcerting to many in humankind.

This disconcerting attitude is only magnified when it can be observed that the two oldest forms of society implement some degree of unilateral control. In a true tribal system, it does not benefit the tribe to have more than one leader. If there are two leaders, the tribe could splinter causing the ultimate survival of the group to lessen substantially. Additionally (as can be seen in the dawning of the monarch) congregations of people are more readily able to co-exist harmoniously when the society has a monolithic culture, language, morality (stemming largely from religion), and leadership. Thus, the true and solitary adversary to a free government and liberal society, is the success of societies predating liberal democracies or republics and the difficulties in maintaining liberal societies in the long term.

This is not to say that striving to establish a liberal isonomiatic republic is fool hearty. In fact, the opposite is true. It was this type of government that introduced the idea that people should be able to control their own legislation; it was this system that suggested that people (not bloodline or divinity) should proclaim who their leaders are; and it was this system that allowed open discussions of the concepts of free will, secularism, and science. So, in fact, this type of government should be striven for, but not without proper understanding of the natural resistance to do so, nor without paying respect to the two longest lasting societies that motivated such a bold deviation from instinct to exist.