Polity II

Polity II; From Theocracy to Polity

By John Taylor; 2007 May 18

Last time we talked about polity in a general sense, defining it as the common, consultatively derived interest of all, including God, as opposed by lesser loyalties, fanaticism and partisanship. This time let us glance back at the history of polity, how it grew out of theocracy. Next time, we will go on to examine it as a Baha'i term. First, here is the definition in Wikipedia,

"Today (polity) is usually a general term that refers to political organization of a group. It is often used to describe a loosely organized society such as a tribe or community, but can mean any political group including a government or empire, corporation or academy. It is also used in the phrase `ecclesiastical polity' as a synonym of church government."

The Wiki encyclopedia (which itself is written as an expression of a polity of experts and concerned onlookers) goes on to add that Aristotle used the word in this sense, and also as a more specialized term describing,

"a society ruled by the many, from all parts of the wealth continuum from rich to poor (mainly middle class), in the interests of the whole community. He believed it to be the best form of government practicable for most polises, lying somewhere between oligarchy (rule by the wealthy) and democracy (rule by the poor)."

They seem to be thinking of the ninth book of the Politics, where Aristotle says that most governments have some form of polity, which is an attempt to "unite the freedom of the poor with the wealth of the rich..." A polity is a meritocracy, a union of the best virtues of all parts of society, each participating in the good of all.

"But as there are three grounds on which men claim an equal share in the government, freedom, wealth, and virtue (for the fourth or good birth is the result of the two last, being only ancient wealth and virtue), it is clear that the admixture of the two elements, that is to say, of the rich and poor, is to be called a polity or constitutional government; and the union of the three is to be called aristocracy or the government of the best..."

No form of Government, he says, "except the true and ideal, has a right to this name." Plato in the Republic had actually used the phrase "universal participation," and recognized the necessity for each element to contribute, but saw he only monarchy, (rule of one) oligarchy (rule of the wealthy), democracy (rule of many), and aristocracy (rule of the best). Aristotle discerned a fifth, a hybrid form, "which retains the generic name of polity or constitutional government; this is not common, and therefore has not been noticed..." Again, polity is still a kind of aristocracy, but not hereditary, the best are the best not because of advantages of wealth, education and other marks of privilege but because they are in the best position to serve the common good.

With astonishing insight Aristotle observed that in his time everything was twisted around by the fact that only a wealthy few had access to a quality education. Since knowledge is fundamental to power, as long as this continued it would pervert the body politic, make democrats pander to populism and incline monarchy to aristocrats, whose sole concern is clamoring for wealth. Thus knowledge inequity blocks the emergence of a polity.

"For polity or constitutional government may be described generally as a fusion of oligarchy and democracy; but the term is usually applied to those forms of government which incline towards democracy, and the term aristocracy to those which incline towards oligarchy, because birth and education are commonly the accompaniments of wealth."

Aristotle would not have discerned polity without having been exposed to the Jewish civilization of the time, whose theocratic element banished images and lesser loyalties that tend to block out direct converse with God. Only if our creator, the One, participates actively does the unity of a polity become palpable. Jewish iconoclasm swept away the images and idols that vitiate this theocratic element, freed them from the tyranny of the seen and allowed a polity to be seen clearly in mind and imagination.

With time, theocracy in Palestine degraded into political squabbling, but later renewed itself with the advent of Christianity, which brought Spirit back into the equation but was unfortunately less avid in its iconoclasm. This changed with the rise of Islam, which was as close to a pure theocracy as we are ever likely to see. George Townshend points out how Islam created by religious means a state dominated by theocratic values,

"Muhammad swept away the former limited loyalties of tribe and family -- A believer who adopts Islam must forget and forgo his own kith and kin unless they were his companions in the Faith. All connections depended on religion alone. The community of Islam was different from any other. It was the chosen of God to whom was entrusted the furtherance of good and the repression of evil. It was the sole witness for God among the nations, the sole seat of justice and faith in the world. Instead of the impersonal life of the tribe there emerged the personal life of the individual which took its claims and its duties not from membership of the community but from adherence to the Faith. Patriotism was thus the element of faith." (Christ and Baha'u'llah, 34)

Townshend then quotes a specialist who says,

"Islam is the direct government of Allah, the rule of God ... upon his people.... Allah is the name of the supreme power, acting in the common interest... between Allah and the believer there is no mediator: Islam has no church, no priests, no sacraments . . . Man is alone in the presence of God, in life and in death . . . to Whom is present every action, every word . . .; alone he will answer for his deeds, and alone will he face the judgment of God . . . The most rigid Protestantism is almost a sacerdotal religion, compared with this personal monotheism, unbending, and intolerant of any interference between man and his Creator." (de Santillana, The Legacy of Islam, pp. 286-287)

The fruit of theocracy was science and mathematics, born of the individual search for truth, combined with an aristocracy of education and expertise. Islamic civilization came into brief flower and it too sunk into corruption and tyranny. Later Europe banished its own autocratic theocracy, Christianity, invented the secular state, a step to polity bolstered by the university and science (both born under Islam), as well as industry. But even with universal education, our polity is falling apart, destroyed by the same quasi-religious images that always obscured the vision of the One behind the many. Now our educator is not the world distilled in language and books but images of the world. We live, as one columnist puts it,

"In a world where good and bad are no longer learned from the Bible or absorbed from the classics, the mass media have taken on the role of the village stocks." ("Hasselhoff, Baldwin, and King Lear," Rosalind Miles, Macleans, May 21, 2007, p. 69)

Next time let us turn to the last hope of a troubled world, the Polity of Baha'u'llah.