Blog Archives

Changing the Paradigm of Being, Part 6: Principles of balanced governance

Did you miss previous parts?


The government exists for specific reasons and has certain powers that enable it to function and achieve its goals. However, the nature of its power is that it has to be contained, or else it will naturally want to expand. If a government becomes too strong it can lead to all sorts of problems and abuses. Government should therefore have no more power than what is necessary to carry out its duties, and the structure of government has to safeguard us from unwarranted acquisition of power.

The principle of separation of powers

It is almost universally accepted now that a democratic government needs to have separation of powers, which means that the government has to be divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility. The common division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. A system of checks and balances that governs interactions between them ensures that no branch of government can become too powerful: they limit each other, at least in principle.

Of course, any government can become corrupt. Constitutional safeguards can fail, in which case the division of power into branches becomes a dead letter on paper. Therefore it is crucial that we don’t put all of our eggs in one basket. The second major principle of balanced governance that we should employ is subsidiarity – an organizing principle of decentralization.

The principle of subsidiarity

The principle of subsidiarity states that a matter should be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority that is capable of addressing that matter in an effective way. This means that governance has to be distributed between the central, regional and local levels.

In the case of United States, which is a federal state, there is a balance of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government. The term states’ rights refers to political powers reserved for the states by the Constitution.

But no matter if a country is a federal or unitary state, we should aim for a strict adherence to the principle of subsidiarity – authorities of regional and local governments should be constitutionally protected and should cover all matters that could be effectively dealt with on a regional or local level.

Of course, there will always be a clash between central control and decentralization, and a trade-off between enforcing certain quality standards and having a freedom to do it your own way. But if we will choose to follow the principle of subsidiarity, we may find the optimal balance. And within that framework, people living in different jurisdictions could enact different solutions for the same problem, through a democratic process on a regional or local level. Local people often know best what is the right solution for their particular circumstances, and citizens could always vote with their feet and move elsewhere, to a different region or community, if they simply could not come to terms with the enacted solution.

The Goldilocks principle

The third major principle to consider is the Goldilocks principle. With regard to the power of government it means that a government should not be too powerful, and it should not lack the power necessary to perform its functions; its power should be “just right”.

When the power of government is just right we get an optimal balance between free market and government intervention. The same could be said for the balance between freedom and security. The government has the responsibility to maintain peace and order, but when it turns into an oppressive police state, then this balance is lost.

Goldilocks zoneGraph: Trade-off between freedom and security.

If we want to maintain a functional democracy it is absolutely essential that we preserve civil liberties granted by the constitution. In most modern states the constitution has supremacy over ordinary law, and the purpose of having such constitution is to set limits on government actions.

The government should be limited, not only to prevent tyranny, but also to minimize incentives for special interest groups to capture its power. The bigger the government is, the greater the possibilities for political corruption are. Of course, I’m not an anarchist or a libertarian, for reasons that I’ve already explained in previous posts, but I certainly don’t support full-fledged statism, either.


The great dilemma

So, we have a difficult situation now: probably all of us want that the power of government is “just right”, but we may not agree on the specifics of this arrangement. Some of us are more liberal, some are more conservative. Some people are afraid of terrorists, others fear police brutality. Some people want Big government to save them from Big business, others are convinced that Big business is the consequence of Big government. These differences are partially inborn, and partially result of different life experiences, which all leads to a biased outlook of the world.

And even if we could find and agree on “the sweet spot” (the Goldilocks zone), would that arrangement be stable? The real issue here is that the government is both the problem and the solution: one role of the government is to regulate corporations, so that they don’t engage in activities that cause collective harm, but this role becomes problematic the minute that special interest groups capture the government. Our quest for the optimal size of the government looks more and more like being between Scylla and Charybdis, and nothing like finding the sweet spot.


Direct democracy

Many people have made similar observations as I have above, and some have even proposed radical solutions. The least radical proposal of all is the call for some form of direct democracy.

I think that direct democracy could eventually become extremely important on a local level, but a system of direct democracy on a regional and national levels would have some serious shortcomings to overcome: in a large political entity it is difficult for a system of decision making to include all three desirable characteristics: participation, equality, and deliberation (see Democratic reform trilemma). I believe that in the short run, a system of semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with instruments of direct democracy) such as the one in Switzerland, is more likely to be successful.

In the long run, electronic direct democracy (E-democracy) could perhaps prove viable, but I still wouldn’t prefer a pure form of direct democracy. First, I think that a much better option would be liquid democracy (a form of direct democracy where citizens can at anytime choose a proxy/delegate to vote on their behalf) – watch the video below for an explanation of liquid democracy, as well as a presentation of the Swiss model.

In addition, I believe that a mixed system that would also preserve some elements of representative democracy, would be the best of all, because it would provide a buffer against potential irrational swings of the electorate, and a safeguard against instability in the event that modern technology, on which E-democracy relies upon, fails for whatever reason.

Changing the paradigm

However, calls for democratic reforms in the direction of direct democracy miss the bigger picture. Direct democracy, no matter what its advantages may be, is still part of the concept of governance. As I have said, I’m not an anarchist, and I believe that there is a good reason for state to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. But, to expect that the problems associated with the misuse of governmental power could be completely solved within the framework of a government, is pretty naïve.

What is really needed is the strengthening of civil society, to act as a counterbalance to both the government and the Big business. That is going to be the focus of the next part.


Continue to Part 7. (coming soon)

The Day We Fight Back and the future of activism

The Day We Fight Back is an upcoming protest against mass spying carried by the NSA that was revealed last year by Edward Snowden. On February 11th, thousands of websites will host banners urging people to contact their lawmakers over the issue of privacy protection.

It’s no secret that I’m deeply in favor of this event, as I have already written in this post that

“Privacy of communication and protection of whistleblowers are two of the pillars of democracy, because it’s very difficult to hold governments accountable without them.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, explicitly mentions people’s right to privacy:

Article 12.

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

And long before this declaration, in 1791, U.S. states ratified Bill of Rights, which is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Its purpose was to set limits on government actions with respect to personal liberties, and the Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires any warrant to be supported by probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment goes hand in hand with the First Amendment which guarantees the freedoms of speech, the press, and the peaceful assembly.

Dilma Rousseff, the president of Brazil, best explained this connection in her speech at the United Nations General Assembly:

“In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy.”

British rapper and vlogger Dan Bull recently made a rap song video appropriately titled “The NSA hate this song” in which he expressed similar concerns:

“PRISM is a prison and the prisoner’s your mind”


“When the NSA watches everything we say, we’ve got to make sure we say what we really need to say”

In other words: obliteration of privacy by government intelligence agencies can lead to self-censorship and stifling of political opposition and unconventional ideas. Watch Dan’s video below:

Some people in power of course want to stifle political opposition that is threatening their current authority. To prevent tyranny it’s therefore crucial that we preserve the ability to communicate freely in private as well as in public; as Steven Pinker puts it in The Blank Slate: “a network of freely communicating citizens can counteract the might of the individuals in government.”


I’m not against the practice of mass surveillance just because it can eventually lead us to Orwellian nightmare. The other reason is that the implementation of my Manifesto for sustainable living depends upon effective democracy and protection of human rights. Without the rights and freedoms that people living in modern democracies currently still enjoy, the establishment of a network of societies (associations) for sustainable living and self-actualization becomes impossible.

Even though I’m not an anarchist (or even a libertarian), I believe that the biggest future social advances will come through voluntary associations, not through the state.

With regard to the power of the state, I’m a proponent of the Goldilocks principle: the state should not be too powerful, and it should not lack the power necessary to perform its functions; its power should be “just right”.

If the state becomes too powerful, it can easily turn into a totalitarian dictatorship, but if it becomes too weak, then it cannot maintain peace and public order. The primary role of government is to defend citizens from outside threats and from each other, to maintain a legal system where disputes can be solved peacefully, and to protect the rights and freedoms of the people.

I see the state as a foundation, that makes higher levels of cooperation between people possible. It provides a playing field, rules of the game, and a referee – then it’s up to people how they team up and how they play. Of course, part of the whole thing is to make sure that the referee doesn’t get corrupt.

If this foundation works properly, then positive social change can occur either through democratic process (democratically utilizing state power to correct market deficiencies), or through people exercising their existing rights and freedoms and establishing voluntary cooperative associations: a new layer of cooperation can sometimes change the existing system even without changing the legal groundwork. Watch this video for an interesting example of this concept:

How to Change Society (short version)


The future of activism

This leads us to the final part of this post. Where does the future of activism lie?

I believe that activists need to realize that they can have profound impact only when they collaborate together. They need to form networks and associations and work together. Of course, they already do collaborate. The Day We Fight Back is an example of how different groups can join forces for a common goal. They already did it in 2012 with protests against SOPA and PIPA. However, such coordinated actions are rare.

The problem is that different activist groups have incompatible visions and ideas, so they don’t really want to work together.

The future of activism lies in bringing various groups together despite their ideological differences. They should learn to collaborate on a case by case basis – work together on goals that they agree upon, despite the fact that they may disagree on all the other issues. Finding common ground and making a few compromises is the only way to achieve the critical mass that is necessary for change.

The other important realization activists have to make is that some issues cannot be solved with a democratic process, because there is simply no consensus in society on how to solve these issues (and possibly never will be). That does not mean that I support violent revolutions or any other non-democratic option that would force the views of the minority upon the majority.

However, there is a solution to this deadlock. It involves the concept of voluntary associations – establishing a new layer of cooperation only between people that want it, and leaving others alone. For example, there may be no consensus for establishing universal health coverage in a particular country. Personally, I think that universal health coverage is a good thing, but the majority of voters in that country might strongly oppose this idea. So, rather than fighting for this cause through political means, why not establishing an alternative system: a network of health insurance co-operatives that could eventually grow big and become de facto universal health care?

It’s just a suggestion. You can choose to take it or not.