Tolkien and Western Government

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Hmm. Hmm. Hmmmm. Let's not be hasty. On what grounds do you make this claim about "optimium form of government", assuming you are speaking also for Tolkien?

Is this the same thing as the quasi-divine right of kingship which Aragorn apparently represents?

Hehe. I knew that someone would pick me up on my little aside and I could have laid odds on it being you, Bb.

I do not claim to speak for Tolkien, although it was the discussion on another thread here concerning Tolkien and politics, together with my own intense dislike of our what passes for "democracy" in my country, that prompted my thoughts concerning the ideal solution of a benevolent dictatorship. And, yes, Aragorn's rule might be considered a representation of it, although the "divine rule" aspect is not, to my mind, a necessary element. It is more important, in my view, that the people accept the ruler as their ruler. Aragorn had both (and this issue, I think, was explored in the thread which prompted my original thoughts).

The main problem with democracy, as I see it, is that an elected government always governs with an eye to the next election and thus concerns itself more with keeping itself in power rather than truly governing for the good of the people it represents. Thus, it is reluctant to take "difficult" measures which might make it unpopular, such as those which may be in the bests interests of the society which it governs in the long-term but which may be unpopular in the short-term (measures required to protect the environment are a clasic example here).

A benevolent dictator has no need to worry about electoral success, and so is free to rule for the benefit of all the people. Being benevolent, he or she would be only too willing to do so. And, being wise, he or she would make the correct choices in doing so. Aragorn's rule at the end of the Third Age does indeed represent such a system.

The problem, of course, is that a benevolent dictator is, like Aragorn, a fantasy figure. It may be a cliche, but it is also a truism that powere corrupts and absolute power (which the benevolent dictator has) corrupts absolutely. A benevolent ruler, however well-intentioned to start with, would be hard pressed to remain benevolent. And, however wise, he or she would be hard pressed to always make the correct choices. Moreover, it would be impossible to rule for the benefit of all of the people all of the time, because people have different hopes, aspirations, goals and beliefs. There would always be malcontents who would wish to overthrow the ruler and install themselves in his/her place. This may be something that Tolkien intended to explore within the context of his tale of the Shadow returning in the Fourth Age (which I have not read), although (as I understand it) Tolkien portrays this in terms of the return of evil. In real life, the malcontents are generally not evil (not at the outset, at least), but rather idealists who believe that they can do a better job, based on their own aspirations and beliefs.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What Tolkien says in this quote is familiar to Brits as the kind of thing the Daily Mail and Telegraph (and most of the people for that matter) might say every few days, how the state is to blame for everything, etc.

I don't think that Tolkien's views in this regard equate to those frequently espoused in the right wing press, which rejects the state when it interferes in ways it considers wrong, yet maniacally calls for yet stricter and more intrusive controls when it perceives them necessary to address wrongs in society (stronger anti-terrorism laws, stricter drugs controls, Megan's law, the death penalty etc etc). The right wing press is inconsistent, whereas I like to think Tolkien was more consistent, in that he rejected the apparatus of the state entirely and would rather have preferred to place the business of running the country in the hands of a recognisable indidviual who could be trusted. So, we're back to the impractical benevolent dictatorship idea again.

For my own part, I differ from Tolkien in accepting the need for a state apparatus but one which recognises individual rights and freedoms and intereferes only where necessary for the protection of individuals and for the benefit of society as a whole, and not where it has no business doing so. I am not sure that Tolkien was quite the libertararian that I am although, from what I have read in his Letters and his stated preference for anarchy, he does seem to have had a libertarian streak in him which, as TGWBS suggests, may well have conflicted with the tenets of his orthodox Catholicism.

And, as Child has suggested, I believe that this "anarchist" streak found its outlet in his portrayal of the Shire. Again, it is an idealised society, with no laws as such but rather customs and practices which all Hobbits respect and subscribe to for the benefit of their society, and where each Hobbit knows, and is satisfied with, his or her place in society. As I said, somewhat idealised, but it certainly has its attractions.

So, I think that Tolkien's ideal from of government finds representation in both Aragorn's rule of the Reunified Kingdom and in the Shire. Although these are very different societies, there are elements common to both. The general acceptance of those "in charge", the "laissez faire" approach to the business of government, the idea of those in charge (albeit loosely so in the Shire) working together with the people for mutual benefit and the absence of any state apparatus. In these regards, perhaps his seemingly conflicting ideals of Absolute Monarchy and Anarchy may be reconciled, or at least combined.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Hehe. I knew that someone would pick me up on my little aside and I could have laid odds on it being you, Bb.

Making book on me, Sauce? I suspect Child just about beat me to it.

Originally Posted by Child

As was often true with Tolkien, it's possible to identify two contradictory ideals in his writings.

Truer words were never spoken here! For all his comments about politics, I don't think Tolkien ever really gave it the kind of serious attention which he gave to language or fairie, and so his ideas about government and politics were not as deeply developed. I think this is what Lal means when she says that Tolkine side stepped the issue? We have here on this thread arguements for anarchy, benevolent dictatorship/monarch, libertarianism. That's quite the range!

My thoughts have always been that Tolkien tends to fall back upon enclosure as a way of protecting a social entity, such as Melian's Girdle, or Aragorn's ruling about The Shire for the Fourth Age, although this could be seen as a metaphor for the good vs evil theme rather than a legitimate political understanding.

Originally Posted by Child

What fascinates me is how the Shire embodies the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson (at least before Jefferson's life became tangled up with politics and slavery). Both Tolkien and Jefferson espoused an isolationist community of farmers, a half republic loosely ruled by a natural aristocracy.

That's a fascinating observation, for as I recall seeing both Washington's Mount Vernon and Jefferson's Monticello, they both struck me as a very medieval form of organisation rather than a model for democratic organisation, despite all the statements of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Here was Washington's estate of 8000 acres, essentially a self-contained community, with, by his death, almost 3000 slaves and yet as a private estate, no rules but his own. (I am relying on my memory that Washington freed 3000 slaves in his will, as I cannot verify this on the web.) Jefferson's plantation had the same affect on me: here was an estate like a medieval fiefdom, no matter how democratic were the acclaimed words of the lord of the manor.

Originally Posted by Sauce

The main problem with democracy, as I see it, is that an elected government always governs with an eye to the next election and thus concerns itself more with keeping itself in power rather than truly governing for the good of the people it represents. Thus, it is reluctant to take "difficult" measures which might make it unpopular, such as those which may be in the bests interests of the society which it governs in the long-term but which may be unpopular in the short-term (measures required to protect the environment are a clasic example here).

Well, who says that the aim of democracy is "the good of the people"? That is for the people to determine, and if they determine to fall for short term flattery, then that is what they deserve. "Democracy" requires that the electorate have a strong understanding of what it means to run a society, so that the success will depend upon how the electorate is educated in their rights. I doubt that in Tolkien's time, and even in our own, there are many people who yet could articulate what issues of power mean. Because a form of government may take a long time to come to fruition is not, I think, a valid reason for rejecting it.

After all, now long did Monarchy have to establish itself in England? And certainly monarchy was always in a running feud with the lords. Much of the history of monarchies is merely a "might makes right" which is then formally imbued with hereditary priviledge. And I think Tokien never looks at this bloody aspect of monarchy. Henry VIII always frightens me!

Originally Posted by Sauce

So, I think that Tolkien's ideal from of government finds representation in both Aragorn's rule of the Reunified Kingdom and in the Shire. Although these are very different societies, there are elements common to both. The general acceptance of those "in charge", the "laissez faire" approach to the business of government, the idea of those in charge (albeit loosely so in the Shire) working together with the people for mutual benefit and the absence of any state apparatus. In these regards, perhaps his seemingly conflicting ideals of Absolute Monarchy and Anarchy may be reconciled, or at least combined.

Possibly, but neither lasts.

Originally Posted by Squatter

but political science, philosophy, and finally and inevitably madness lie in that direction.

This is the first time I've seen this description of the long defeat!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, who says that the aim of democracy is "the good of the people"? That is for the people to determine, and if they determine to fall for short term flattery, then that is what they deserve. "Democracy" requires that the electorate have a strong understanding of what it means to run a society, so that the success will depend upon how the electorate is educated in their rights.

Well, I am afraid then that such an ideal democracy is about as likely as my benevolent dictatorship. People vote with mainly their wallets - aka "It's the economy stupid!".

Are their any forms of democracy represented within Tolkien's works? The Mayor of Michel Delving was an elected post, but it was largely ceremonial in nature. How about the Master of Laketown? Was this role perhaps elective? If so, Tolkien does not exactly portray it in a good light. The elected official greedily using his position to line his own pockets. Hmm, sounds familar.

I suppose that Tolkien's putative ideal societies, The Shire and the Reunited Kingdom, might be regarded as democratic in a sense, in that those in authority rule with the will of the people. Then again, even assuming that the "people's" goodwill remains constant, any vestige of democracy ends with the death of the incumbent and the operation of the hereditary principle.

[Kuruharan]

That's a fascinating observation, for as I recall seeing both Washington's Mount Vernon and Jefferson's Monticello, they both struck me as a very medieval form of organisation rather than a model for democratic organisation, despite all the statements of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

It is not really so hard to understand when one reflects that the system they designed could be interpreted as being intended to create a situation where every citizen could be something of a king on their own ground. In the public sphere they were citizens, in their private they were masters of their own domain.

To a certain extent, I think this might have been an idea with which Tolkien could have sympathized.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

It is not really so hard to understand when one reflects that the system they designed could be interpreted as being intended to create a situation where every citizen could be something of a king on their own ground. In the public sphere they were citizens, in their private they were masters of their own domain.

To a certain extent, I think this might have been an idea with which Tolkien could have sympathized.

That still makes ownership of private property the prime criteria for full citizenship and still limits those who work for the Master to slavery. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

There is private property in The Shire, as we see the conflict between Bilbo and Lobelia over Bag End and I don't recall tenement, rental hobbit holes. Does Rohan have Viking forms of communal ownership or more medieval?

[Kuruharan]

That still makes ownership of private property the prime criteria for full citizenship and still limits those who work for the Master to slavery. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

That's beside the point I was trying to make, as you well know...

[Nogrod]

I think there are at least two different variables here in question.

Firstly, there is the actual size of the community. With a small commune it's easy to set up a straight democracy or a traditional rule of things. With a larger scale things get more complicated... as we can see from all ancient civilisations and from the modern world strifes around the world. Rousseau thought his ideals for a good community could be applied in Geneve of his time (40 000 inhabitants, about)!

Secondly, there is the question of the rule itself and its qualities. Here I think old Aristotle is unsurpassable. He said that all the institutions of government can be reduced to six categories of which three are genuine and three are twisted. So a self-rule, when it looks to the well-being of all all is called a Kingdom [basileia] and the twisted version (where the one ruler just thinks of his own benefits) is called Tyranny [tyrannis]. The all-encompassing rule of the few (the rich & the educated) is called Aristocracy [aristokratia]and the twisted version of the elite fooling the poor is called Oligharky [oligharkia]. The power of the civilised people is called Politeia. In it the people rule and think for the best of all. The twisted mob-rule is called Democracy [demokratia] - where the majority just takes care of it's concerns and the minority just have to endure.

So how did Tolkien play with these? Surely Denethor was a tyrant and Aragorn was a king? Saruman would have been a tyrant and Theoden a king? Sam would be something like a governor-character, albeit surrounded by well wishing aristocrats like Merry & Pip - so an aristocracy?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

That still makes ownership of private property the prime criteria for full citizenship and still limits those who work for the Master to slavery. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

As it is so Tolkienish - didn't Sam and Fredegar Bolger own their residences or at least have a claim to them? Were there slaves or "hired men" in the Shire? Surely not (see: a small, idealized community of "owners"). But at the same time it's so Lockean... the founding father of any ownership-thinking in the western world (curious enough, Marx had exactly the same ideas about the authorisation of property but just disagreed with the way that ownership could be granted). And when you come to the larger circles of Rohan or Gondor, this scheme seems to unfold all the more clearly... Tolkien seemed to have a realistic / pessimistic view about larger communities (added with the utopian hope for a good king to settle it right) combined with a purely utopian view of the Hobitton as the modern day sub-urbanity in the middle of an old world?