b h a g . n e t    visual and conceptual exchange    b h a g . n e t

   
bhag cover page          bhag public journal          John Clay public journal

Every July the US commemorates the political independence from England that our new nation had declared in 1776. At the time, so the history books tell, there had been much debate on how and even whether the declaration should be made. Now it is as complete an act as the arrival or parting of an Ice Age. How or whether are long past. But the meaning of independence is a living issue.

Independence declares what America is not: Not dependent on another nation to govern us. The negative formulation served a purpose. It broke the bonds of the colonies' political allegiance to the English monarchy. Americans no longer wanted to depend on England to make laws and policies for us. The affirmative formulation tells the other half of the story: We are self-governing. Americans chose to depend on ourselves and on each other, to make our own laws and policies. The colonists had in fact done so, for the most part, until the Seven Years War between England and France shone a spotlight on the colonies and the Crown began micro-managing American affairs. But now, as a result of our declaration and revolution, American self-governance was to be recognized and made lasting.

And here an insight can break like summer grass through the cement of this cold old topic. Dependence, or interdependency, is the foundation of responsible governance and commerce among people.

In monarchy, the people are dependent upon the ruler but the ruler, benevolent or not, depends ultimately upon no one. At any moment any rule, law, or contract can be swept away in a royal decree whose sole source and judge is the person who wears the crown. The flow of information and authority is one-way. Feedback, correction, and calibration are blocked. The people are powerless to contrubute their insights and expertise, and the ruler becomes isolated, ignorant, and irresponsible—literally not responsible to anyone beyond himself. Life is subject to the arbitrary whims of one human being, not to the objectivity of socially-decided written law. Royal power represents total independence of an individual or ruling class from the greater society and represents a total absence of unaccountability.

To be dependent upon someone, on the other hand, is to be answerable to them. Dependence is not to be eradicated but balanced among participants. Unable to negotiate a balanced relationship with the English Crown, the colonists declared themselves free of the old one-way allegiance to King George and dedicated their energies to the responsibility of governing themselves. Americans would govern each other through mutual allegiance to the negotiated contract of many (the law) rather than allegiance to the arbitrary power of one (the Crown).

Royal power is the mode in which George W. Bush confronts the American people. It is the mode in which the US government under George W. Bush confronts the nations of the world in international policy. A leader who is never swayed from his position by opinion, that is, by the people, and instead declares "I'm the decider, I decide" might seem to represent an admirable steadiness. But in fact he is demonstrating that he does not feel accountable to the people. Americans can depend on our leaders only when they know they depend on us.

© 2004 John Clay