Decline and Fall
First published nearly 250 years ago, Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a classic, a monumental (although seldom read) history in six volumes. While it has been subjected to a degree of revisionist criticism over the years, especially for Gibbon’s views on the extent to which Christianity played an important role in the eventual fall of the Roman Empire, it remains an authoritative account. Like many others, I have not been able to complete reading the whole work. Rather I have dipped into sections from time to time: any more would be a challenge. A master of the complex sentence, Gibbon professed to avoid distractions, but he was exceptionally good at following his own red herrings (fascinating as they were!).
One volume covers the aftermath of the rule of Theodosius, the last Roman emperor to rule over a united empire (although tensions between the east and west had been in evidence for some time). Theodosius ruled from 379 to 385 AD, and on his death the empire was split in two, with the Western Empire under one son, Honorius, and another son, Arcadius, became the Eastern Roman Emperor. Both were weak, and it was the beginning of the end. At this point in Gibbon’s history, the barbarians (the Goths) are about to invade Italy and sack Rome (which eventually took place in 410).
Rome was no longer the capital, but it was still the pre-eminent city in the Roman Empire. Gibbon provides a nice summary of the character of Rome at the time, studded as it was with opulent palaces: “several of the richest senators received from their estates an annual income of four thousand pounds of gold, above one hundred and sixty thousand pounds sterling [roughly £24m or $32m today]; without computing the stated provision of corn and wine, which, had they been sold, might have equalled in value one third of the money. Compared to this immoderate wealth, an ordinary revenue of a thousand or fifteen hundred pounds of gold might be considered as no more than adequate to the dignity of the senatorian rank, which required many expenses of a public and ostentatious kind … The estates of the Roman senators, which so far exceeded the proportion of modern wealth, were not confined to the limits of Italy. Their possessions extended to the most distant provinces … [and] were either cultivated by the labor of their slaves, or granted, for a certain and stipulated rent, to the industrious farmer.”
He continues: “The opulent nobles of an immense capital, who were never excited by the pursuit of military glory, and seldom engaged in the occupations of civil government, naturally resigned their leisure to the business and amusements of private life. At Rome, commerce was always held in contempt: but the senators, from the first age of the republic, increased their patrimony, and multiplied their clients, by the lucrative practice of usury; and the obsolete laws were eluded, or violated, by the mutual inclinations and interest of both parties.”[i] Get the picture?
Rich, self-important and self-confident, the upper class of Rome found it hard to accept what they saw when the barbarians were at the gate. When they arrived “the first emotions of the nobles, and of the people, were those of surprise and indignation, that a vile Barbarian should dare to insult the capital of the world: but their arrogance was soon humbled by misfortune”. [ii] Rome was sacked, and the collapse of the empire accelerated.
Today some are claiming we are witnessing the decline and fall of the US ‘Empire’. It is easy to see the parallels with Rome back in the early part of the 5th Century. The countryside is dotted with the ‘palaces’ of the ultra-rich, whose wealth is similarly outrageous. Wriggling round “obsolete laws”, the wealthy make their profits on the backs of workers (whose lives have many similarities to those of the slaves or farmers of yesteryear). At the same time, we, too, are dealing with the fragmentation of the world between east and west, economically and politically.
Does the great majority of the population understand what is happening? Back when the Roman Empire was about to fall, Gibbon describes how the populace was entertained: “But the most lively and splendid amusement of the idle multitude depended on the frequent exhibition of public games and spectacles …The pantomimes, who maintained their reputation from the age of Augustus to the sixth century, expressed, without the use of words, the various fables of the gods and heroes of antiquity; and the perfection of their art … always excited the applause and wonder of the people. The vast and magnificent theatres of Rome were filled by three thousand female dancers, and by three thousand singers, with the masters of the respective choruses.” They had bread and circuses, and today we have hamburgers (for sports heroes in the White House), sporting events from Super Bowls to basketball March Madness and more. As Gibbon puts it: “the happiness of Rome appeared to hang on the event of a race”. Just so, and if that were not enough, we have added the never-ending entertainment of television to the soporific mix!
However, rather than suggesting the end of the US and its empire, I want to advance a rather more dramatic thesis: today, we are witnessing the decline and fall of the ‘democratic empire’.
How so? To start, we can visit Freedom House, a U.S.-based and government-funded non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights. Freedom House was founded in October 1941. Each year it publishes Freedom in the World, an annual global report on political rights and civil liberties. “The report’s methodology is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … [it] operates from the assumption that freedom for all people is best achieved in liberal democratic societies … [it] assesses the real-world rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals, rather than governments or government performance per se. … While both laws and actual practices are factored into scoring decisions, greater emphasis is placed on implementation.”
The 2019 report marks the 13th consecutive year in which ‘democratic norms’ have declined around the world. To visualize how things are going, they show a map with countries that are ‘free’, partly free’ and ‘not free’. [iii] Face value, the maps suggests that the ‘west’, the Americas, Europe and Australasia are free; the ‘east’, Middle East, Africa and Asia are largely not free. A jaundiced student might be concerned at some assessments. Myanmar is partly free? Indonesia is partly free? To a very small degree. Even more doubtful is the suggestion that India is free (I wonder how Muslims feel about that?), and also South Africa. But let’s put quibbles to one side.
What has been happening? If I was going to be arguing for the decline and fall of the US Empire, the report is very helpful, arguing that challenges to American democracy are testing the stability of its constitutional system and threatening political rights and civil liberties worldwide. As part of this year’s report, Freedom House offers a special assessment of the state of democracy in the United States: “While democracy in America remains robust by global standards, it has weakened significantly over the past eight years, and the current president’s ongoing attacks on the rule of law, fact-based journalism, and other principles and norms of democracy threaten further decline.” Can’t argue with that. In the latest report, The United States is scored at 86 out of 100 points, clearly lower than other major democracies, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, but still in the Free category. Nevertheless, it has declined eight points since 2011. Freedom in the World reveals the US score is the same as Belize, Croatia, Greece, Latvia, and Mongolia. Great company!
Part of the problem here is that freedom is not the same thing as democracy, and democracy can be combined with oligarchy, and especially plutocracy. Oligarchies are systems in which power rests with a small number of people, usually on the basis of birth (aristocracies), wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious, political, or military control. A plutocracy is a form of oligarchy, in this case where the power is determined by wealth. Most democratic nations are representative democracies, where elected representatives comprise a legislative body; in many cases they are drawn from a small pool, often the wealthy. In other words, they are plutocracies.
It is hard to distinguish where a representative democracy ends and an oligarchy begins. Despite the high score given by Freedom House, political control in the US is largely in the hands of the wealthy, both those who stand for office, and those individuals and large corporations which support candidates (naturally, this ‘support’ is not a matter of unfettered generosity). There are examples of their involvement in US politics every day, as the recently delayed FAA grounding of the Boeing 737 Max made clear. Just to remind you, the average US citizen has little voice, as even when the times comes for voting, the choice is often between two party ‘hacks’.
Switzerland stands out when compared to other countries, as it has a system of direct democracy, one which causes great interest among analysts of freedom, some seeing the country as a pioneer of real democracy in practice. Briefly, Swiss citizens can propose changes to the constitution or ask for a referendum on any law voted by government, at the federal, cantonal or municipal level. Swiss citizens vote regularly on all types of issue at every political level, such as financial approvals of a school house or the building of a new street, or the change of the policy regarding sexual work, or constitutional changes, or the foreign policy of Switzerland. Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, on 103 federal questions besides many more cantonal and municipal questions. [iv]
A pioneer, or the exception that proves the rule? I suspect direct democracy is possible in a country of 8.5 m people, but only in nations with populations that small. Noting this exception, we should get back to my argument about ‘decline and fall’. Why do I think we may be at the early stages of the decline and fall of democracy? The evidence is all around you. Going back to Freedom House, if we accept their categorisation of nations, 2bn live in nations that are not free, and a further 2.3bn in one that are partly free, leaving 2.8bn in countries defined as free.
A key word in this is ‘free’. In 1958, Isaiah Berlin gave a lecture at the University of Oxford on Two Concepts of Liberty, drawing a distinction between ‘freedom to’ and freedom from’. Freedom to allow you to decide, positive liberty, is concerned with autonomy. Clearly positive liberty includes being free to choose who governs you, and as such is an underpinning for democracy. Negative liberty, freedom from, is concerned with the ability to do as you please free from coercion by others. [v] This approach is most often linked to JS Mill, and his observation that “The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” [vi] Alas, while that liberty is the one sought by so many citizens of the US, it is a form of liberty hard to exercise, as almost anything we do has consequences for others. For that reason, the ‘free’ in Freedom House has to be seen as balance between both kinds of liberty as “Men are largely interdependent, and no man’s activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way … the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others.”[vii] Despite protestations, I doubt anyone is truly free, and most democracies limit many freedoms.
Does having rights make a difference? Freedom House ties its analysis to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here, again, the logic is tricky. Just because you vote for a government does not mean that government will ensure you have the rights set out in the Declaration. We know many countries, including the US, do not accept the Declaration or many of the rights it lists. Nor, sadly, does having a Supreme Court help. Courts have their own criteria for decisions, and appeals to ‘universal rights’ seldom carry much weight.
All this is familiar. Freedoms are not guaranteed by representative democracies. Oligarchies are unlikely to support rights that will diminish their control. The track record of the past few years is that government are retreating from giving any more freedom. Indeed, in an atmosphere of populism, isolationism and victimisation we see restrictions increasing. If you need convincing, look at what’s happening in Central and South America; the increased controls being imposed by Xi Jinping; the limitations and racist policies of Narendra Modi; the erosion of attempts to save democracies in Africa; and the continuing policies adopted against women and minorities in the Middle East. Sadly, I’m sure next year’s Freedom House report will not show any improvement. Democracy is on the skids all over the world. It must be time for governments to increase the provision of bread and circuses: sporting cups, Olympics, televised talent competitions, dating shows, gripping serials, and, if all else fails, more gossip columns on the rich and famous!
What did Winston Churchill say: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” [viii] I fear he got that wrong. Instead, he should have ended with: “Indeed it has been said that democracy is among the worst forms of Government, except for its fashionability at the present time. Clearly, oligarchies have better staying power.”
If Gibbon were writing today, his review of democracy’s decline would be finished, and he’d be starting his survey of the fall. Hang on: so, who would he see as the barbarians at the gate?
[i] Chapter XXXI, Volume 3, Gutenberg edition: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-0.txt
[ii] Ibid
[iii] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2019/map
[iv] As usual, a good overview is to be found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland
[v] http://cactus.dixie.edu/green/B_Readings/I_Berlin%20Two%20Concpets%20of%20Liberty.pdf
[vi] J S Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 1, 1859, now available through Project Gutenberg
[vii] Berlin, op cit
[viii] UK Houses of Parliament, 11 November 1947
