Madaba’s Statement on Equality: Equality And Elites?

Madaba’s Statement on Equality: Equality And Elites?

This essay was penned by Andy Perwend, on behalf of Madaba. It is consistent with The Program of The Divine Agency (see glossary for if you are unfamiliar with these terms)

In this post I discuss "Elites" in the political sense more than in the social sense. I will address all that in a future post, in which I will dig deeper into the concept!

This post is Madaba’s Statement on Equality - communicating The Program, putting it into action:

Everybody is either a human or a non-human. There is no in-between. And it is impossible for one human to be more human than any other human. If you’re a human, then that’s that. There are no sub-humans walking about and no super-humans either. If you are of the species Homo Sapiens, then you are a full member of humanity. There are no membership tiers, and you cannot be stripped of your status as a human.

I believe that The Divine Agency’s Program (basically, God’s guiding principles. Basically…) contains provisions regarding the absolute equality of all humans. That is why not only is slavery unethical in that it violates the fact that all humans are equal, but it is also immoral as The Divine Agency (who has moral authority) has ruled that it is evil. Slavery is wrong, as are other forms of unfree labour – such as tenured servitude or being a serf.

Human equality should be a universal premise. It should be built into all our systems, all our structures, all our laws.

Although all people are of equal value and worth, some are clearly more gifted than others. Intelligence follows a pattern of normal distribution – there are as many people with above average intelligence as there are of below average intelligence. But a person’s intelligence says nothing about their worth, it simply is not a factor. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t value intelligence and lament human stupidity.

I think that we should run Planet Earth as a meritocracy, and that each person should occupy a position based on their abilities and skills. Clearly, we are not in a meritocracy as merit does not determine who is or is not in control – instead such arrangements are shaped by politics. So we often get stupid people in positions of power that should be filled with more able, talented individuals. That shouldn’t be but there’s not much we can do about that; it is a flaw in democracy. Which is the best political system available…

And if the people want to elect idiots to run things then that's democracy, but not really democracy at its best! They aren't really doing their democratic duty if they elect idiots. But on the other hand I would rather an inept but principled leader than a competent but ruthlessly self-serving one! - but I think the ideal thing to aim for is a good intentioned and principled leader who is also competent and good at leading and getting things done! - you can have both, it doesn't have to be either-or!

There are now well over eight billion humans living on Planet Earth. And even if we had a kind of global democracy a ruling elite would emerge. Elites always emerge, no matter what society we’re talking about. Power always ends up concentrated in the hands of one set of people, who become an elite and then work to increase their own sectional power. However, I see nothing necessarily wrong with this, if the elites value equality (and promote the common internest) and people become elite by virtue of merit or achievement, rather than birth or bank account. For a human society to function – culturally, politically, and economically – there will always be an elite and there has to be an elite. But the masses should have power over the elites and different factions of the elites should compete against each other to win the approval of the masses.

Ferdinand Tönnies drew a distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft - Association and Community. Two different kinds of society. In a Community relations are personal (rather than instrumental) and they can be run in an egalitarian way. Associations on the other hand are not personal, they are instrumental and bureaucratic, formal, and hierarchical. Communities are also much smaller and less complex and effectively run themselves without deliberate effort or a distinction between the public and private realm. Scale and complexity mean that in any association (nation, town, political party, movement) an elite will always emerge who get to decide what happens. You cannot have a large association without there being an elite, in the political sense. A select group who control the mechanisms of power and the institutions and structures of society in general as well as the policies, values and agendas. If you want to talk about elites in the social sense, well that's another issue!

Basically: if we had a true democracy then there would be nothing wrong with there being elites, which are inevitable and necessary in any modern society. The problem is, our democracies are corrupt and infested with either self-serving crooks of maniacal crackpots, who manipulate and fool the masses to get their backing and votes. So as to get as much power as possible and to make that power serve their own personal and sectional interests. Some systems are more corrupt than others. For instance, the system in the USA is clearly broken whereas the German system is much better – more democratic and less corrupt.

The elites should serve the long-term common interests of all citizens, and the citizens should have power over who gets to control and govern. And everyone should have equal status within the system and the same political rights. And citizens have a duty to criticise and hold the elites to account. Rather than being sycophantic about them or fawning over them and making personality cults about them.

Every citizen should approach being a citizen by adopting the ethos “I am of the demos and the demos rules. Therefore I rule”. And then acting accordingly. If we get a system where that happens, and where government works for all then that would be a good start. Such a situation is something to aim for, and if ever achieved something to value. A system in which the population take the lead and dictate to the Elites by flexing whatever power they wield. It is the civic duty of the general population to make the Elites work for them. If that happens then there is nothing wrong with having Elites. You can either have good Elites or bad Elites. You cannot have a system without Elites. Elites will always emerge. That's how humanity works. The citizens need to make The Elites work for them - not the established interests of the rich and powerful.

I think that if the elite serve the common good and public will then there is nothing wrong with there being an elite. Especially if anyone can become elite by virtue of personal merit. But if they don't serve the common good and the common will then they should be opposed - or even disposed of. But that's a whole other issue!

If the Citizenry don’t’ take their civic duties seriously then they can’t really complain if scheming rogues grab power and then manage to hold onto it. However, a great many citizens are currently under the spell of demagogues. Or don’t care. Which is sad. But there is more to democracy than voting. They vote in North Korea and Adolf Hitler came to power due to elections. Both the North Korean regime and Hitler used/use elections to bestow legitimacy, even if they are not free and fair or don't take place within a democracy.

Anyway - this is the point I'm trying to make: You can have both elites and an equal society! Having elites does not make a society unequal. Equality is best measured by social outcomes and how just society is, rather than by participation in the mechanics of government. If the elites do the will of the people and serve the interests of the people then it is not bad that there is an elite - especially if without them things would descend, and get much worse! - Everyone should have POWER, but CONTROL has to be in the hands of an elite, it always will be, there is no way of escaping that in an Association - which is not the same as a Community! But yes, Social Power is different to political power, and I will look at social elites in my next post, rather than political elites!

It's a matter of elites and their control representing the will and interests of the masses!

In any complex society there is a division of labour - people all have different, specialised jobs to do. Governing is a job like any other, politics is a career. Therefore there has to be a political class - class in the occupational sense, people whose business is politics: working in government, be it executive or legislative or in government or in opposition. In a simple community we would have direct personal democracy

Also: Elites should be equal to the masses, they should have the same (equal) status. "Elite" should be a horizontal division, not a vertical division. Political elites should be governed by an ethic of service, not of domination or dominion. Their programs should be for the good of all, not just their backers, or whoever financed them.

Right now, in the West the political classes (the combined political factions who inhabit the systems of power) are a part of a Capitalist system. That is how our society is run. Madaba is not a Capitalist, but neither is he a Communist. 

Instead, he is a Communitarian.

I will explore Communitarianism in my next post.

And remember: Madaba can and does mind-control and guide certain members of The Elite - with both them knowing and having no idea. In ways that he does not control normal ordinary people.

Madaba thanks you for reading.