How does public ennui relate to sovereignty? My previous blog relates how ennui can be quite shortsighted, in the sense of its narrow focus on the present without anticipation of its effect on the future. But it also permits a specific delusion regarding democratic sovereignty.
Sovereignty was traditionally defined as an independent and supreme power, inalienable and transcendent. But Webster’s dictionary offers us a synonym for sovereignty as merely an “autonomous” or self-ruled state, not necessarily imbued with supreme, inalienable, and transcendent power. Our current United Nations Charter recognizes this contemporary definition of sovereignty and demands its support by all member states. The UN Charter, however, does not differentiate between diverse types of claimed sovereignty. And that lack of differentiation is at the heart of an ongoing struggle between democracies and fascism.
When any government claims independent and supreme power, that is, its “sovereignty,” it must justify its source for commanding such power. And history shows many such justifications. Divinity was the initial source for wielding absolute power over peoples of many different nations. Priestly vicars spoke for the gods they represented, and people followed their dictates without question. Furthermore, belief in the “divine right of kings” bequeathed supreme power to an individual as a God-given birthright, inalienable and transcendent. And the crown was then passed to subsequent generations, each of which demanded obeisance in the name of God and country. The many empires of history were thus led by revered leaders believed to be officially ordained by God to wield independent and supreme power. Pharaohs, kings, queens, emperors, and empresses claimed this supreme power as bequeathed them by the gods. But their power was often challenged and occasionally usurped by militaristic leaders who assumed supreme power by force and subjugated their conquered populations. Those conquests were examples of human self-rule justified by force, a different kind of “sovereignty.” Except for brief experiments in ancient Greece between the fourth and sixth centuries, B.C, the concept of a people’s self-rule by choice, rather than conquest, was not considered viable. But the Grecian experiment with democracy in ancient Athens was one of the inspirations for James Madison’s proposal for a democratic Constitution that has defined the 245-year-old republic we call the United States of America. But do these myriad examples of sovereignty justify its traditional definition or, rather, characterize the evolution of the concept of “sovereignty?”
The United Nations Charter assumes and recognizes the sovereignty of nations as an absolute and transcendent right to govern themselves within established borders that all member nations must recognize and respect. This Charter was established after World War II with the intent of creating a mechanism to prevent territorial disputes and incursions often justified by rogue/radical ideologues or despots. But it makes no distinction between different forms of “sovereignty.” There are still monarchs who are crowned in religious ceremonies where they are anointed before God and their subjects as heads of state. But they do not always hold the absolute power of past monarchies. Instead, they often function within some form of power sharing with parliaments. There are also democratic states that are governed by laws derived from constitutions established and supported by their citizens. And these citizens also assume responsibility for self-governance by means of their democratically elected representatives. In fact, some degree of self-government tends to be the aspiration of our modern era, except for outlier regimes. And these outliers are those rogue states often governed by dictators who assume power by political intrigue, deception, a/o violence. Hitler, Mussolini, Putin, and others assume absolute power in such manner (reference “Ruled by Veracity or Perfidy”). Within democracies, however, sovereignty is invested by their citizens in a formal Constitution written and modified by elected officials via a formal process and ratified by their majority vote. And those officials take an oath to serve both the principals documented in that Constitution and the general welfare of their entire citizenship. In America, this form of government was described by Abraham Lincoln as being “of the people, for the people, and by the people.”
In truth, the traditional definition of “sovereignty” has mostly passed into history with the “divine right of kings,” though its current derivative serves to guarantee the territorial integrity of nations. The various sovereignties the United Nations seek to preserve cannot be uniformly categorized. Whether believed to be established by God, like the Vatican, by all-powerful dictators, like Russia, by royal lineage, like several European nations, or by democratic Constitutions, like the United States and many other democracies, sovereign nations cannot and do not fully realize the formal definition of sovereignty. Specifically, no nation is considered to have supreme power and independence as a right that is absolute and transcendent. A democratic republic like the United States, for example, endeavors to be a more perfect union of its citizens, who constantly adapt it to changing times and an evolving electorate. Its very existence is justified by the United States Constitution and the laws designed to enact its principles as determined by elected representatives and enforced by judges appointed by those representatives. Whereas the belief in a sovereign God is a religious affirmation and the prerogative of every human, the decision to form a government is a political decision that rests with humans who do not act with supreme and transcendent power. So, who now believes state sovereignty is supreme and transcendent? Well, Putin believes in it, as did Hitler and Napoleon before him. The absolutism implied in the traditional definition of “sovereignty” naturally leads to totalitarianism which often means fascism, as recent history has graphically demonstrated.
Territorial disputes, like the unprovoked war Putin has initiated, must be condemned by the United Nations for it violates the very Charter Russia has signed and swore to support. Its unprovoked war with Ukraine is not a war of liberation, but one of conquest. Putin, for example, claims he is liberating Ukraine from Nazis. More recently, he claims that the right of self-government was a “gift” from the Russian government that Putin has the right to revoke. But he is clearly fabricating justifications for his despotism. Many thousands of Ukrainians and Russians will pay the price for his deceit and lack of personal accountability. Even so-called wars of liberation, like the American interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan also have had a price to be paid. And American Presidents and politicians continue to pay that price before their electorate. While no democracy is perfect, the fact remains that citizens bear ultimate responsibility and must endeavor to hold their elected officials accountable for any behavior adverse either to their oath of office, to morality, to their campaign promises, or to the general welfare of all. Politics in any democracy must be anchored in the common good (bonum vitae civilis), or else it serves only the interests of the politician, in which case it becomes Machiavellian and simply amoral. Democracies fail when the “art of the deal” preempts the general welfare in favor of self-serving political goals like campaign funding or unconscionable power.
American “sovereignty,” consequently, is not an absolute, though its governance is firmly anchored in the principle of self-rule. Each of the American States reflect the will of their citizens as defined in their constitutions and, further, align with the Federal Constitution which defines the will of all Americans. But what does this democratic form of “sovereignty” mean and what does it require? Well, it means we Americans agreed to form a more perfect union by affirming our support for the principals and form of government delineated in our Constitution. To the extent that each generation of Americans continue this allegiance, America will continue as a democratic republic. Our “sovereignty” then is not guaranteed by God and does not command absolute and independent power. Instead, it must conform to our Constitutional principles, reflect the contemporary will of the American electorate, AND be held accountable to that electorate. The only states who claim absolute sovereignty are totalitarian by nature. Democracies are sovereign only to the extent that they are ruled by principles upheld by their citizens who alone are accountable for the laws and actions of their state. Otherwise, America itself could and would become a failed democratic republic.
The United Nations cannot and will not differentiate a failed Republic from any other totalitarian regime. And America might no longer become representative of a democracy, but rather aligned with states like North Korea, where our former President found “love.” He also aligned himself with Russia’s leader whom he characterized as “brilliant” for his characterization of an unprovoked invasion as a “military exercise” to free Ukrainians from Nazis ghosts. How is it possible that the American voter cannot recognize these characterizations as a drift towards totalitarianism and its mortal threat to our democracy?
American ennui ignores the only basis for American sovereignty which is a citizenship held self-accountable for its own governance. Instead, such ennui allows a craven politics to subvert democracy in the service of rapacious and perfidious politicians. Remember, it is always “we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,” that must assume responsibility for who represents our Republic and what policies are represented. When that responsibility is not reflected in the voting booth, the gradual shift to totalitarianism becomes inevitable.
____________________________________________
Postscript: As this blog was materializing, war broke out in the Middle East. Although the initial assault was a violent and brutal attack on a sovereign nation, it is not possible to call it unprovoked. It was the product of an unholy alliance between a democratic state and the terrorist organization whose governance it recognized. The victims include both the Palestinians denied fair representation and the innocent Israeli citizens who became victims of unimaginable brutality. And now as that war escalates, centuries of tribal antagonism and enmity threaten the lives of many innocents on both sides. Our American President has spoken of a “two state solution.” I certainly do not have the wisdom to solve this humanitarian crisis. But I am sure that continued escalation of war will not ameliorate the underlying distrust and ill-will between Palestinians and Israelis. It seems simplistic to propose a two-state solution when a terrorist organization persists in Palestinian government and war ravages both parties in the contest. But somehow fair-minded men and women must curtail any escalation of this war. They must find a path towards reconciliation that includes both holding those accountable and building a framework for peaceful co-existence in the future. Unfortunately, I have no answers for this long-brewing tragedy—just my prayers for peace and understanding between fellow human beings.