Tribal Society + Democracy = ?
February 3, 2012 11:02 AM Subscribe
How (if at all) will tribal cultures and societies come to incorporate democratic ideals?
The self-immolation of a man in Tunisia has literally sent dominoes falling across the Arab world. People are getting a taste of individual liberty and freedom that has long been denied. Obviously, the road forward will not be smooth. From where I sit in the west, there appears to be an inherent conflict between tribal society/culture and elements of democracy like majority rule and protection of minority rights.
Is this conflict actually different from (less than?) what I may be seeing through my western eyes? Are there historical examples we can examine for how tribal societies morphed into more democratic ones? While no one can predict the future, what might historians say - fifty years from now - about how this drive for liberty and freedom played out?
The self-immolation of a man in Tunisia has literally sent dominoes falling across the Arab world. People are getting a taste of individual liberty and freedom that has long been denied. Obviously, the road forward will not be smooth. From where I sit in the west, there appears to be an inherent conflict between tribal society/culture and elements of democracy like majority rule and protection of minority rights.
Is this conflict actually different from (less than?) what I may be seeing through my western eyes? Are there historical examples we can examine for how tribal societies morphed into more democratic ones? While no one can predict the future, what might historians say - fifty years from now - about how this drive for liberty and freedom played out?
("Tribal" societies often have democratic mechanisms - in general they have democratic mechanisms, or they wouldn't survive. You could usefully look at the ways that many Native societies were organized before colonialism - a nominal hierarchy by birth or age with an actually-existing democratic/popular method of making decisions. "Democratic" doesn't mean "elections".
Also, if you're thinking that the societies of the middle east are tribal because they are Muslim and some of them have a hereditary ruling aristocracy (sheikhs and so on)..."tribal" is not the word you want. A modern authoritarian regime is not "tribal" no matter how much it beats the drum about arab identity.
There have been all kinds of "drives for liberty and freedom" in the arab world (as elsewhere). I'm not super familiar with pre-20th century Middle Eastern history, so I have no suggestions there, but you might look at the anti-colonialist and modernizing movements of the early 20th century. Or at the Iranian socialist movement that was basically crushed by the US and allies.
"Democracy" doesn't happen in a vacuum, nor does it happen purely out of a social/aesthetic desire for "freedom". In fact, the very people who are big advocates for "freedom" are often against the things that create democratic movements - which are usually civil rights or labor rights organizing. Democratic movements don't really work unless there's been a lot of organizing beforehand - maybe for another cause that spills over.)
posted by Frowner at 11:24 AM on February 3, 2012 [4 favorites]
Also, if you're thinking that the societies of the middle east are tribal because they are Muslim and some of them have a hereditary ruling aristocracy (sheikhs and so on)..."tribal" is not the word you want. A modern authoritarian regime is not "tribal" no matter how much it beats the drum about arab identity.
There have been all kinds of "drives for liberty and freedom" in the arab world (as elsewhere). I'm not super familiar with pre-20th century Middle Eastern history, so I have no suggestions there, but you might look at the anti-colonialist and modernizing movements of the early 20th century. Or at the Iranian socialist movement that was basically crushed by the US and allies.
"Democracy" doesn't happen in a vacuum, nor does it happen purely out of a social/aesthetic desire for "freedom". In fact, the very people who are big advocates for "freedom" are often against the things that create democratic movements - which are usually civil rights or labor rights organizing. Democratic movements don't really work unless there's been a lot of organizing beforehand - maybe for another cause that spills over.)
posted by Frowner at 11:24 AM on February 3, 2012 [4 favorites]
You may find this piece interesting (I certainly did - found via dhartung):
How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the "1 Percent"
posted by flex at 11:31 AM on February 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the "1 Percent"
posted by flex at 11:31 AM on February 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
Why do you think tribal/democratic is a dichotomy? What is a tribe? What are tribal systems for controlling people's behavior, and how do they differ from democratic ones? Is there just one tribal way of constructing society, or are there many different ways? Are you conflating "corrupt regime that gained power after subverting the election process" with "tribal?" Why are those things related in your mind? Must a country pursue democracy to allow for individual autonomy and protect minority rights? Is majority rule always positive? At what level of government should most power be held? Are current inter-ethnic relations indicative of issues inherent in tribal systems, or have non-tribal external actors shaped the current status quo?
In the few indigenous North American cultures that I've read in quasi-detail about, individual liberty was extremely highly prized and group action was generally a matter of consensus, in which leaders and followers influenced each other to find what was agreeable. The default in those particular societies was much greater individual autonomy, and personal freedom, than the Western world has ever seen, ever, at all, ever. (Did I say ever enough times?)
In fact, the majority of indigenous North American cultures may have respected individuality and autonomy so much that their continent-spanning inter-tribal counsels found themselves unable to mount a unified resistance to westward expansion. Perhaps if the tribal way of life were less respecting of individual freedom and minority rights, we would be living in a very different world right now.
Your question further makes me wonder, is America a democracy? Can any country be a democracy when money is the deciding factor in most elections, and half the population doesn't vote? When lobbyists, but not citizens, can literally draft legislation and have politicians submit it unchanged for review and potential enactment? (With some groups having success rates in the double digits, their laws regularly being passed without any changes at all in their scope or wording.) Is there a meaningful difference between a representative democracy and a pure democracy? Which is America? Is there any way to protect minority rights in a representative democracy? Why is it that the majority of people support ideas such as gay marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana, yet their wishes have not beceme the law of the land? There seem to be certain inherent conflicts in the American system that undermine the idea of majority rule and the protection of minority rights, so I don't know.
posted by jsturgill at 11:44 AM on February 3, 2012 [5 favorites]
In the few indigenous North American cultures that I've read in quasi-detail about, individual liberty was extremely highly prized and group action was generally a matter of consensus, in which leaders and followers influenced each other to find what was agreeable. The default in those particular societies was much greater individual autonomy, and personal freedom, than the Western world has ever seen, ever, at all, ever. (Did I say ever enough times?)
In fact, the majority of indigenous North American cultures may have respected individuality and autonomy so much that their continent-spanning inter-tribal counsels found themselves unable to mount a unified resistance to westward expansion. Perhaps if the tribal way of life were less respecting of individual freedom and minority rights, we would be living in a very different world right now.
Your question further makes me wonder, is America a democracy? Can any country be a democracy when money is the deciding factor in most elections, and half the population doesn't vote? When lobbyists, but not citizens, can literally draft legislation and have politicians submit it unchanged for review and potential enactment? (With some groups having success rates in the double digits, their laws regularly being passed without any changes at all in their scope or wording.) Is there a meaningful difference between a representative democracy and a pure democracy? Which is America? Is there any way to protect minority rights in a representative democracy? Why is it that the majority of people support ideas such as gay marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana, yet their wishes have not beceme the law of the land? There seem to be certain inherent conflicts in the American system that undermine the idea of majority rule and the protection of minority rights, so I don't know.
posted by jsturgill at 11:44 AM on February 3, 2012 [5 favorites]
It may be that the fact of tribalism is less important than the type of tribalism. Some forms of tribalism may be more egalitarian, for instance, than others.
I remember reading an article years ago that argued that one of the main obstacles to true democracy in Latin America was Catholicism. Catholicism is not democratic in any way, it's authoritarian, hierarchic, sexist, etc.
posted by mareli at 11:45 AM on February 3, 2012
I remember reading an article years ago that argued that one of the main obstacles to true democracy in Latin America was Catholicism. Catholicism is not democratic in any way, it's authoritarian, hierarchic, sexist, etc.
posted by mareli at 11:45 AM on February 3, 2012
Best answer: "Tribal" societies often have democratic mechanisms
This is true, but I think the implicit question the poster is asking (at least, the interesting question, in any case) is with reference to states that contain multiple tribes. For a state that contains a single tribe or a set of affiliated tribes (like certain Polynesian island states, for example) transition to democracy can be relatively straightforward. For states that contain multiple tribes it is often challenging: one's identity as a "citizen" is often in direct competition with one's identity as a member of a particular tribe. See e.g. Hutu vs. Tutsi.
posted by yoink at 11:55 AM on February 3, 2012
This is true, but I think the implicit question the poster is asking (at least, the interesting question, in any case) is with reference to states that contain multiple tribes. For a state that contains a single tribe or a set of affiliated tribes (like certain Polynesian island states, for example) transition to democracy can be relatively straightforward. For states that contain multiple tribes it is often challenging: one's identity as a "citizen" is often in direct competition with one's identity as a member of a particular tribe. See e.g. Hutu vs. Tutsi.
posted by yoink at 11:55 AM on February 3, 2012
Many tribal societies are either democratic or incorporate as many democratic elements into their function as we do. It's not as if there is this linear progression with tribes at one end and democracy at the other.
Are you asking about the transition from tribal societies to a Western-style democratic nation-state?
Because if you are, and if you are interested in a contemporary negative example, there have been a number of interesting books and articles about Papua New Guinea, where the various tribes and their wantok mentality are often very much at odds with the Western-style representative democracy that many would like it to be. That society is a fairly good example of the challenges facing a society where there really is conflict between various ideals that everyone would like to, but cannot, uphold at once.
On a more positive note, look at the evolution of the USA, from a British colony hellbent on the theft of Native lands and so on, to a contemporary society which, for all of its flaws, has far more safety and tolerance than anyone could have begun to imagine at the time of the nation's founding.
However, the US evolved gradually, over the course of a few centuries, into becoming basically the archetypical Western-style democracy. Attempts to affix American values onto other countries have met with mixed success, especially when these attempts come from without rather from within, and when these reforms are at odds with an existing culture that may have fundamentally opposed ideas about life, liberty, and property.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:30 PM on February 3, 2012 [2 favorites]
Are you asking about the transition from tribal societies to a Western-style democratic nation-state?
Because if you are, and if you are interested in a contemporary negative example, there have been a number of interesting books and articles about Papua New Guinea, where the various tribes and their wantok mentality are often very much at odds with the Western-style representative democracy that many would like it to be. That society is a fairly good example of the challenges facing a society where there really is conflict between various ideals that everyone would like to, but cannot, uphold at once.
On a more positive note, look at the evolution of the USA, from a British colony hellbent on the theft of Native lands and so on, to a contemporary society which, for all of its flaws, has far more safety and tolerance than anyone could have begun to imagine at the time of the nation's founding.
However, the US evolved gradually, over the course of a few centuries, into becoming basically the archetypical Western-style democracy. Attempts to affix American values onto other countries have met with mixed success, especially when these attempts come from without rather from within, and when these reforms are at odds with an existing culture that may have fundamentally opposed ideas about life, liberty, and property.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:30 PM on February 3, 2012 [2 favorites]
Oh, also, you should check out Francis Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order, which is an interesting book about the development of nation-states from a (smart, interesting) guy who once basically said that democracy was a terminal condition, and then balance it out with John Gray's Black Mass, where the author compares neoconservatives who think Western-style democracies ought to be foisted onto all societies to delusional utopian cultists.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:34 PM on February 3, 2012
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:34 PM on February 3, 2012
Response by poster: Are you conflating "corrupt regime that gained power after subverting the election process" with "tribal?"
No.
Why are those things related in your mind?
They aren't.
Must a country pursue democracy to allow for individual autonomy and protect minority rights?
No.
Is majority rule always positive?
No, of course not. Some reason you feel compelled to be so argumentative?
****************
In hindsight, I can see I was conflating 'adoption of democracy' with 'ability to govern'. Yoink has it right in the reference to challenges inherent in states that contain multiple tribes. Let's also stipulate that, in many places in the Middle East, "state" is often a construct imposed by external (sometimes colonial, sometimes post-war) forces.
posted by John Borrowman at 4:21 PM on February 3, 2012
No.
Why are those things related in your mind?
They aren't.
Must a country pursue democracy to allow for individual autonomy and protect minority rights?
No.
Is majority rule always positive?
No, of course not. Some reason you feel compelled to be so argumentative?
****************
In hindsight, I can see I was conflating 'adoption of democracy' with 'ability to govern'. Yoink has it right in the reference to challenges inherent in states that contain multiple tribes. Let's also stipulate that, in many places in the Middle East, "state" is often a construct imposed by external (sometimes colonial, sometimes post-war) forces.
posted by John Borrowman at 4:21 PM on February 3, 2012
Response by poster: All European societies have tribal origins, if you go back far enough in the historical record. But who remembers who is descended from Visigoths or Picts or Suevi or Allemani etc. now? Who even remembered it a thousand years ago? Changing political circumstances can erode tribal allegiances quite rapidly in the right circumstances.
Well, sure. But, in this case, 'the right circumstances' consisted largely of being conquered.
posted by John Borrowman at 4:30 PM on February 3, 2012
Well, sure. But, in this case, 'the right circumstances' consisted largely of being conquered.
posted by John Borrowman at 4:30 PM on February 3, 2012
You might be interested in the references to this paper (warning MS Word file--who posts those?). I sort of suspect 'tribal' might be a red herring and that maybe you're really asking about multi-ethnic states, whether the groups are perceived as tribes or not.* There aren't that many successful multi-ethnic democracies that I can think of offhand. (Particularly if you define 'successful' as lasting more than, say, 50 years. Much of the world gets eliminated either by a coup or colonialism.) European borders aren't drawn perfectly on ethnic lines, but after the Second World War people got re-shuffled into countries much more homogenous than the Austro-Hungarian Empire was. India counts. (The answer there is federalism, I believe.) The US and Canada are products of colonialism and immigration, rather than countries formed out by drawing a border round disparate ethnic groups.
*What's the difference between an ethnic group and a tribe anyway?
posted by hoyland at 4:44 PM on February 3, 2012
*What's the difference between an ethnic group and a tribe anyway?
posted by hoyland at 4:44 PM on February 3, 2012
From where I sit in the west, there appears to be an inherent conflict between tribal society/culture and elements of democracy like majority rule and protection of minority rights.
And from where I sit in the west, there seems to be an inherent conflict between corporate oligarchy and elements of democracy like majority rule and protection of minority rights.
How about I rethink your question: Given the recent execution in Georgia, USA, of a black man who had a strong basis of reasonable doubt behind his case (Troy Davis), despite universal condemnation of a prison system that houses one percent of its total population, how can democratic cultures (if at all) incorporate democratic ideals.
posted by outlandishmarxist at 6:19 PM on February 3, 2012
And from where I sit in the west, there seems to be an inherent conflict between corporate oligarchy and elements of democracy like majority rule and protection of minority rights.
How about I rethink your question: Given the recent execution in Georgia, USA, of a black man who had a strong basis of reasonable doubt behind his case (Troy Davis), despite universal condemnation of a prison system that houses one percent of its total population, how can democratic cultures (if at all) incorporate democratic ideals.
posted by outlandishmarxist at 6:19 PM on February 3, 2012
Not quite on point, but this thread from 2006, about democracy in the developing world, has some very interesting general pointers.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:54 PM on February 3, 2012
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:54 PM on February 3, 2012
This is obviously a pretty tricky question. There are number of different theories of democratization
There are some theories that link democratic stability and success to income levels Wikipedia discusses this a bit.
Other materialist explanations are interesting too. This paper is one of the more interesting approaches I've seen--the causal chain they try to establish between rainfall and democracy is essentially one answer to your question. Clearly political-economic factors are important.
Education is a huge factor, as are existing institutions like civil society and the bureaucracy. All these can affect the rule of law and expectations citizens have for their government, creating a social contract. Alexis de Toqueville is basically the classic advocate of this idea.
In terms of not only the Arab Spring but the world more broadly as well, one democratizing factor may in fact be nationalism--a force that can go a long way to serve the public interest at the expense of factionalism. (obviously it can be problematic as well)
There are definitely examples of countries that have successfully transitioned to democracies in the same vein as Tunisia, etc... may be able to do. Asia has a number of good examples, like South Korea and Indonesia.
posted by ropeladder at 10:54 AM on February 4, 2012
There are some theories that link democratic stability and success to income levels Wikipedia discusses this a bit.
Other materialist explanations are interesting too. This paper is one of the more interesting approaches I've seen--the causal chain they try to establish between rainfall and democracy is essentially one answer to your question. Clearly political-economic factors are important.
Education is a huge factor, as are existing institutions like civil society and the bureaucracy. All these can affect the rule of law and expectations citizens have for their government, creating a social contract. Alexis de Toqueville is basically the classic advocate of this idea.
In terms of not only the Arab Spring but the world more broadly as well, one democratizing factor may in fact be nationalism--a force that can go a long way to serve the public interest at the expense of factionalism. (obviously it can be problematic as well)
There are definitely examples of countries that have successfully transitioned to democracies in the same vein as Tunisia, etc... may be able to do. Asia has a number of good examples, like South Korea and Indonesia.
posted by ropeladder at 10:54 AM on February 4, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by yoink at 11:11 AM on February 3, 2012