Mathematics of Governance

Rousseau and the Mathematics of Governance

By John Taylor; 2006 November 24

I have boundless admiration for the genius, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his masterpiece, "The Social Contract." Here he seems to be grasping towards an automatic, almost a mathematical kind of governance. He actually proposes that the power of a prince be divided by the number of subjects in a strict ratio according to the latest census. The Prime Minister of Canada, for instance, would be one over thirty three million Canadians. In other words, his power is extremely diffuse compared with the number of subjects under him. At the same time, there is established what might be thought of as a spiritual force, or a magnetic field connecting them. This sounds ridiculous, but at the same time it has a spark of genius. As James Surowiecki's "Wisdom of Crowds" points out, there are ways of tapping into the extraordinary insight of many minds working together by simply averaging out their opinions, even if they are ostensibly blind guesses. Once we start learning how to do that, political science will become an applied science. Government and consultation will change completely.

Rousseau's insights, in my opinion, have not even begun to be followed up on. For one thing, he recognized a certain relativity among the various types of government, and among the organs of a single government.

"Throughout the ages men have debated the question, `What is the best form of government?', and yet they have failed to see that each of the possible forms is the best in some cases and the worst in others." (Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract, Penguin Books, London, 1968, p. 111)

This requires some background. Traditionally only three possible kinds of human government are allowed, rule by one, rule by a few, or rule by many. This was established by Aristotle, and picked up for modern political thought by Montesquieu and Rousseau. Rule of one is called monarchy, rule of the few is aristocracy, and of many, democracy. Rousseau, following Montesquieu, is saying that each of these has advantages at certain times, in certain circumstances, according to the stage of development of a given people.

Reading this, I wondered about where the Commonwealth of Baha'u'llah fits in. Strictly speaking, the Baha'i administrative order itself is a kind of aristocracy, since the House of Justice is made up not of one or of all Baha'is, but of a few. They are a non-hereditary Aristos (meaning, "the best"), and their power is restricted to In Camera sessions; they are elected, and their term is limited to a five year term. This Aristos, like all real-world governments, combines the other two elements too. The broader mould of a Baha'i world order would fit monarchic and democratic elements in as well. We have faith that no good would be excluded from the commonwealth of Baha'u'llah. But still, according to the classical formulation, it is at core an aristocracy.

The problem facing human government is how to deal with transformation and progress. Peoples and communities change over time, often unpredictably; and the change, even in Rousseau's time, was accelerating. As he points out, a community learns virtue, or slips into vice, and nobody is served notice as to which direction they are heading. The best government for a people afflicted by one vice, or endowed with a certain virtue, will vary according to the degree of vice or the stage of virtue that they happen to be in. This followed the standard medical model of the time, where health was believed to be the result of a balance of certain "humours" within the body.

"... often the government that is best in itself will become the most pernicious, if the relations in which it stands have altered according to the defects of the body politic to which it belongs." (Ibid., p. 107)

According to Rousseau, in every nation there are three balancing elements, also based on the triune of the one, the few, and the many; first there is the executive (sometimes termed the prince), then the legislators, and last, the people. These connect by a strict "geometric progression," a mathematical relationship that adapts dynamically.

"... as there is only one mean proportional between each relation, there is also only one good government possible for a State. But, as countless events may change the relations of a people, not only may different governments be good for different peoples, but also for the same people at different times." (103)

Rousseau's model resembles a magnet that suddenly connects when its invisible field contacts visible iron filings. The three elements, the prince or sovereign who rules, the magistrates who give laws, and the people who obey, all balance. The sovereign does not rule himself, he as it were "channels" the collective power of the people. Similarly the parliament does not make laws for itself but for justice. Their balancing unity connects the power and will of the nation. The health of the state depends upon each conforming to its respective role.

"Furthermore, none of these three terms can be altered without the equality being instantly destroyed. If the Sovereign desires to govern, or the magistrate to give laws, or if the subjects refuse to obey, disorder takes the place of regularity, force and will no longer act together, and the State is dissolved and falls into despotism or anarchy." (103)

This is what Rousseau describes, anarchy and tyranny, the effects of failing to connect at a deep enough level. In spite of stronger, more sophisticated nationalistic, sovereign governments, despotism and anarchy have become the marks of our age.

Think of the monumental dithering and procrastination of governments in the face of the climate crisis. Never in history has there been anything like the daunting challenge facing political science today. It is a frightening prospect, millions of refugees flooding the high ground, increased hurricanes, massive starvation, all the while leaders of thought are choking people's minds with predudices, stirring up ancient ethnic and religious hatreds.

Kant had a great insight, inspired by Rousseau, when he used the word "cosmopolitan" to describe the level at which the ideal government for a given situation connects and brings all under it to life.

Cosmos comes from the Greek word "Kosmos," referring to the primeval state of things that predominated before there was order. According to Greek and Hittite legend, Gaea (earth) and Uranus (heaven) emerged from chaos and the ordered, understandable world as we know it began. Nothing could exist in chaos; it was confusion, death, the opposite of order. The cosmos is just the reverse, a universe that is orderly, harmonious and systematic. In English, a cosmos can refer to any complex, orderly, self-inclusive system. The latest cosmos to come into being is the World Wide Web. Every day the Web grows and becomes more complex, but its order and accessibility are not compromised. In fact, most have come to expect the latter to improve as well, and thanks to the power of supercomputers running search engines, so it has.

Combine cosmos with Polis, meaning "city," "government" or community," in Greek, and you get cosmopolitan. To say "cosmopolitan" is to say "world order" in one word. If there is to be unity in the world, one must begin in the belief that our universe is ordered. Both science and religion are based on this basic cosmopolitan perception. Science begins in strong faith that our world is ordered by law, that it is comprehensible and therefore subject to our influence. Religion holds that these laws were made intentionally by a good and loving God for our use and benefit.

But today both religion and science are failing to galvanize the magnetism we need to address our challenges. They are not cosmopolitan. A burdensome legacy of narrow loves and loyalties is threatening any active survival response that anybody, even the most starry-eyed dreamer, can imagine happening. Old faiths and patriotisms become a disease and prejudice blocks the magnetism we could get from a world embracing belief system, a universal body politic. They say that radical crises require radical solutions; here is how `Abdu'l-Baha put that saying:

"It requires a universal active force to overcome these differences. A small disease needs a small remedy, but a disease which pervades the whole body needs a very strong remedy. A small lamp may light a room, a larger would light a house, a larger still might shine through the city, but the sun is needed to light the whole world." (Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 59)

The world is in darkness. It lacks the powerful light of one sun, and of wills turned to it. In the gloom we attempt to solve one problem and knock into others solving other problems. Sovereign nationalistic governments founder, and the ecosystem reflects that in global warming. A cosmopolitan form of governance, based upon a firm constitution, would reverse the trend. Our next essay, "An Algorithmic Constitution" will look into possible ways and means.