Why Democracies Hesitate to Use Force
B.W. Wojciechowski, April 2024
Governments of all kinds have invariably faced a seminal dilemma. Machiavelli put it succinctly.
A question arises:
whether it is better to be loved than feared,
or the reverse.
Nicolás Maquiavelo, Florentine diplomat 1489–1527
Current social turmoil in the world is due to democracies shying away from strict enforcement of just laws while dictatorships abuse them. And the reasons in both cases are obvious. Having achieved a fairly high level of education and communication, citizens in all modern societies are bemused by the structure of their legal and social systems. They are confused because, in the minds of most citizens, the justifications offered for the methodologies applied in today’s social structures do not pass the test of well-informed, rational objectivity. In democracies, this lack of conviction has led to institutional indifference masquerading as tolerance, In dictatorships it has led to repression of the doubtful.
It is not only the laws that lack a sound basis in logic but there is also a lack of quantifiable measures of the harm done by antisocial activity and the appropriate level of force to deal with this. Even the best Constitutions are the products of the hopes and inclinations of their authors and not of a sound understanding of the possibilities and probabilities applicable to interactions in developing social structures. In both democracies and dictatorships, we have structures that depend on “feelings” and not on the rational, quantitative way we see applied in science and technology. The age of rationality is upon us, and anything less than rational social mechanisms is no longer adequate. Unfortunately, most of the social sciences are committed to the “stabilities” of the past and have failed to keep up with technological and social realities.
I will try to clarify what I mean by social mechanisms. First, I will be transparent about my background so contrarians can dismiss my ideas as inapplicable extensions of what I understand. But here is what I know and what I think could be helpful.
My research at Queen’s was in reaction mechanisms in hydrocarbon chemistry. Some of the systems I and my students investigated were relatively simple reactions of single hydrocarbons. Others dealt with reactions of complex mixtures of molecules present in petroleum. My interests were broad and occasionally touched on nuclear reactions and biology. At all levels of complexity that I encountered, my goal was to discover the steps involved in the mechanisms of the reactions and to quantify them by constructing a mathematical equation that could trace the course of the reaction and show how changes in conditions affected its progress.
The word mechanism may not be clear so here is a definition:
The mechanism of any interaction
involves a series of actions and reactions.
that via a more-or-less complicated chain of events
lead from an initial condition to a subsequent state.
The same word, mechanism, is applied to machines where an energy input, via shafts, gears, levers, and other mechanical gadgets results in some kind of output, say moving a car.
With this, as a basis, we can see that society, the economic system, and the wheels of justice are all mechanisms having inputs, outputs, and intervening activities. It also seems clear that the intervening mechanisms can involve many steps and that these steps all have behaviors each of which must be understood. That is what engineers do when they design internal combustion engines or any other mechanism that scientists and engineers want to operate.
Social scientists will need to understand and quantify
the steps in the mechanisms of human interactions
if they are to optimize the design of a society.
However, they face a much more difficult problem than that faced by me and the Hard Sciences in general. Whereas Hard Science deals with mechanisms largely involving causality, Soft Science, say Sociology or Economics, must deal with probabilities, free will, and unforeseeable events. This introduces a great deal of unknowns and probabilities of unplanned events, rather than being strictly controlled by causal interactions.
Some problems of dealing with probable events have been tackled, say in atomic physics. We do not know which atom fission will occur next, but we know how many atoms will fission in a given time. With this kind of probabilistic measure, we can build nuclear power stations or bombs and understand how they work under various conditions. We now understand the mechanisms of nuclear reactions and safely use them to further our plans, not a simple matter, as evidenced by the cost of the Manhattan Project.
But compared to social interactions this is just the beginning. Each of the steps in Soft Science mechanisms has a probability attached to it, not a simple number unambiguously defining the result of an interaction. There are easy and difficult situations that arise in social interactions. Consider the field of social interactions involving commerce.
The manufacturer of automobiles depends on many inputs. These range from the delivery of numerous raw materials to contractors, who produce parts of the finished product, to delivery systems of parts, and of the finished product, and finally on the wishes of the customers. Each of these issues has its mechanism involving additional probabilities. For instance, the delivery of steel depends on mines, which depend on miners, who need equipment, that needs fuel, and so on. The complexity of the organizational mechanism of car production boggles the mind. But good managers have mastered the issues, and their companies increase the wealth of their society.
In commerce, the mechanisms have been understood and successfully quantified. Even then, a strike at a mine can throw a wrench into the mechanism. To deal with this, essential buffers such as alternative paths or reserve stocks, are needed to keep the mechanism in operation long enough to outlast the disruption, one hopes. So you see, highly complicated mechanisms are present in social interactions involving commerce. In well-developed economies, the required organizational mechanisms and their quantification are the sine qua non of successful operations.
Not so in the case of social structures, ones where governments deal with policies, say justice and social spending. In these all-important areas of activity, politicians prefer as much unassailable latitude as they can muster, the heck with possibilities, and who cares about the promised but unsubstantiated probabilities? We need another untested regulation or law, they say. This is currently the universal standard based on the premise that politicians, informed by excellent and infallible information, know best how to proceed. All the citizens (consumers) have to do is buy into their policies and pay for them.
Not so fast, Honorable Sirs. It is amply clear that your solution to all social problems is to spend more of my money on things that politicians think will do them the most good. The unsubstantiated probability, even the certainty they will claim, is that it is essential to do this for the “Common Good.” No verifiable proof is offered, we must trust in their judgment. Here is where, in the modern world, the powerful hammer of propaganda meets a hard rock, the skepticism of the aware citizens. And the citizens are well enough informed to be skeptical, despite all the information chicanery they face from propaganda. No wonder politicians prefer unlimited generosity and tolerance, they would have trouble justifying their policies.
This skepticism is equally applicable to the absurdly antique legal system. Judges are prone to making whimsical judgments and juries to irrational decisions. It is high time to attempt to rationalize the whole system, giving due weight to the fact that an offense may have various causes and consequences. It is beyond the scope of this essay to deal with these problems in detail, but it is possible to imagine a significant improvement if AI and a more rational approach to jurisprudence are adopted. The archaic principles and procedures of our inconsistent Honors grate on the sensitivities of modern citizens.
In a well-run industry, profits are generated, and the workforce and supply chain operate smoothly. Strikes are rare and logistical problems are usually well handled. In social policies, solutions involve repression or money spent on ill-evaluated goals. Governments are not charged with creating wealth. If a civil service organization made money, God help them. But ill-run societies will go bankrupt or suffer revolutions. There is no way to undo the damage done by bad policies without a painful transition to a better system. Unfortunately, at present, there are few promising solutions on the table.
The political progressives of today have few useful ideas, they want their place at the trough. A true revolution would spill too much blood, though the USSR collapsed with little bloodshed and little improvement in society. The old communist apparatchiks were not eliminated and remained in control of the strings. The gentle collapse of the USSR made swift-footed power grabbers of the old regime rich. Clever.
The principal problem with all government policies is that they are never (?) tested against a cost/effectiveness reality. As a result, they are usually a wealth-draining burden on society. The government acts as if it has limitless resources. Their borrowing to maintain this illusion will eventually ruin society. Every policy should contribute to the financial success of society. And if that is not possible, we should know what the cost will be. Then the citizens, not the politicians, should decide if they want to pay for it. At present, while the costs burden society, they enrich the politicians, if only by helping ensure their re-election.
Similarly, in the case of the system of justice, all activities should be centered on reducing the costs of this operation and of crime. Instead, one gets the impression that the legal mechanism of justice is an unreliable large-scale recycling scheme. Arcane games and whimsical procedures throughout the system do little to reduce danger and costs to law-abiding citizens. All mechanisms must be understood and designed to achieve the best performance in the operation for which they are designed. It is bad social engineering if they don’t.
I do not want to comment in detail on the departments of Social Studies at Western universities. I hear little that is complimentary. But, perhaps, among the PhD theses that have been accepted, some address the problems and needs I address above. Perhaps someone can do some digging in university libraries and find one.
The Question Remains
Why do Democracies Hesitate to Use Force?
Because it is increasingly obvious that they have failed to construct defensible, objective, rational, mechanisms that can justify their operations. They count on selective tolerance and unaffordable generosity to save them. Dictators use force liberally because they do not need to justify their policies. Force is their tool to operate society. In both cases, governments are not seen by “the people” to be rational. No use looking for a “benevolent” dictator. Better to bring objectivity and rationality into social systems.
And now, some toppings for the pizza
No oppression is so heavy or lasting as that which is inflicted
by the perversion and exorbitance of legal authority.
Joseph Addison, English essayist and politician 1672–1719
Judges ought to remember that their office is jus dicere
(to interpret what the law says)
and not jus dare (to make new laws).
Francis Bacon, English philosopher and statesman 1672–1719
Governments must employ rational arguments
to convince citizens of the benefits of their activities.
Ruling by fiat in the shadows of antiquated convictions and practices
is the road to oblivion.
BWW
Remember, democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
John Adams, American statesman 1735–1826
