Political Justice

by Alexander J Illingworth

Chapter V

  Ministries

  A minister is, by his very name, a servant to a master.18 Today ministers might be more readily known by many people as ‘cabinet members’, or in the United Kingdom and United States as ‘Secretaries of State’. It is in fact no coincidence that these latter two countries have decided upon the title of Secretary for their ministers, but rather it is a useful reflection of what the ministers of state ought to be doing throughout a term of office.

  We have considered the influence of corrupt ministers upon kings, and we have considered briefly why ministers are less inclined towards corruption in more thoroughly structured mixed governments, so now we shall attempt to define the role of a minister. For what is it that a secretary does outside of a political context? He is an administrator, a keeper of records and a distributer of information pertaining to executive commands received from those they work for. A minister is therefore like a secretary for the government: he is a keeper of information regarding practical policy, and he oversees the administration of policies which require day-to-day checks and reviews in order to keep certain areas of society functioning. The minister is not there to express his own opinion or to change the operation of his role at his own whim, no — he is there as a servant. Since all political power is derived from all people in society, he is a servant of the people. If he is a minister of the Crown, then since the Crown derives its legitimacy from the love of the people, so too is a minister of the Crown a servant of the people. The minister is a tool of government, and he serves those above him. Government, if it is to be successful, must represent the natural inequality in human society, and so too are the administrators and masterminds of government naturally unequal in the hierarchy of executive power. There is nothing to stop a minister from petitioning for a change to policy, but he may not change the policy he is implementing until he has approval of those who oversee his work.

  So the role of the minister is that of a servant. But what are the roles of ministries in general? There seems to be a ministry for almost everything in the modern world, and at times it is disturbing to see echoes of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four seeping into the fabric of society and government. In Orwell’s world, where the infamous Ministries govern almost every aspect of daily life in the global state of Oceania, the mantras of War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength govern a deceived populace who cannot even recognise the oxymoronic quality of the slogans which their state repeats to them. It is only terrifying when one realises that this is the purpose of modern ministries: not to serve the people for whom government was first created, but to churn out meaningless statements and mantras to keep those people preoccupied with working out how various policy areas will affect their own personal lives rather than considering what the purpose of government should be, or whether the policy itself is inherently virtuous. Ignorance has become such a strength that much of the political establishment itself has already come to believe it for themselves; policy is no longer decided by a parliament which represents all members of society but rather by individuals in governmental offices considering how best to further their own agendas. Ministers must be governed by those who appreciate society as a whole and have a vision for the betterment of mankind if ministries are to avoid becoming corrupt in the ways depicted in Orwell’s novel. A parliament must be the dictator of policy, since if the executive decides on policies by its own whims then it is also more likely to break promises.

  If ministers are appointed by a high officer of government, there is the chance that they will be appointed according to the personal interests of that officer. If ministers are directly elected, then those ministers will reflect the opinions and concerns of the significant number of the electorate, which may not necessarily be the best for society as a whole. In either system, ministers may also be inclined to change policies partway through a term of office in order to respond to the changing caprice of the public, which, once again, may lead to broken promises or a deviation from the path of virtue for the sake of maintaining the popularity of the ministers. Parliament, which represents the hereditary nobles who have maintained their status by means of virtue, the commons, who have sent their representatives to parliament, and the monarch, who presides over the whole institution of government, must be the body which holds these ministries to account, since it represents both the capricious commons and the more steadfast nobles, also informed by the morality of the Church. Virtue, once again, is the governing force of ministry, and since ministers are the tools of government, they are tools which must be used for betterment.

  A balance must be struck between freedom and authority: the means for bringing about a completely libertarian society by means of executive power is found in the defence of the individual right to personal freedom and the right to mental freedom. A ministry which dictates the sorts of food that a population should eat, for instance, is inappropriate, since it removes individual freedom from the individual who has the right to choose the sort of food he eats and suffer the consequences of good or ill health as a result as a matter of personal risk. A ministry for the management of food standards is quite another matter, since such a ministry would oversee the rules which ensure that the manufacturers of food do not corrupt their produce with material which might harm the population. That would be a virtuous pursuit of government, since it prevents the sin of harm. Any harm taken upon an individual by that same individual, however, is not the concern of government. Malice and vice should be the enemies of virtue, and it is the purpose of government to make them so. Where there is no malice, but only a matter of reasonable personal conscience, the ministries of state should not interfere.

  Ministries in general should be kept to a minimum, since it should be the primary concern of individual communities governed by good men to ensure that virtue is propagated by strong interpersonal moral values; however, ministries will be necessary for the function of any government. If communities throughout a nation have institutions which ensure that local morality is maintained, then ministries are the fathers of those institutions; they are the representatives of the community of the whole nation and therefore must operate by the same morality. They should set an example by their conduct of sound administration and be answerable to the nation through a parliament. One need only look at the past in the early United States, or Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. Whilst we cannot fairly say that these times were perfect, the appreciation of community was much stronger. These states had much fewer ministries and interfered with the affairs of local communities much less than in modern Western societies, since the morality of the time prevented the state from needing to intervene on behalf of local communities. It is a virtuous morality which must be propagated if ministries are to be made functional, and to be reduced. Virtue is the door to a good society; functional, restricted ministries hand in hand with moral communities are the hinges.

  Chapter VI

  Subjects and Citizens

  So long as there are governments there will always be those who are subjects and citizens of those governments. These are the people who elect representatives to the commons, perform jobs to earn salaries and keep the economic system moving. They are the ants of a colony who work hard and build something at the end of it; for all their endless toil they have the potential to create something special. A revolutionary would suggest that these ants should kill the queen ant and take decisions for themselves, operating on their own individual free will. Indeed, we must ask — why should the people of a nation be below other citizens in terms of rank and privilege? Why should they be unequal, and what is the purpose of this inequality?

  We have already asserted throughout the course of our argument that human beings are naturally unequal by nature of their biology and individuality, and as part of that inequality, society itself must also be structured hierarchically. Throughout history, whenever a new civilisation has arisen, it has always formed a society ordered around an unequal structure. We have sa
id that elites or nobles who are awarded certain titles and positions within society must be given such positions as a result of virtuous actions, the habits of which they can pass on to their successors to create a system of hereditary virtue which sustains virtue within the function of government itself. Does this mean that those people who are mere subjects and do not take part in elite life are not virtuous? Of course not, it is perfectly possible to endeavour to live virtuously and not be a noble. The purpose of nobility it to reward those who perform extraordinary deeds which advance the prestige and virtue of the entire nation, whilst there are other awards both titular and monetary which can be conferred on other citizens who have still expressed a concern for their fellow citizens but have not shaken the earth with their mighty deeds. This is how we may structure society: the monarch was traditionally the strongest of men, who was appointed as king because he earned the love of his people, or vanquished his challengers, then convinced his people that he should be their ruler (since not even the strongest man can withstand the ire of a thousand weaker men) then those who demonstrated great virtue were ennobled, those beneath them knighted or awarded the merit of certain order, and those yet to prove any prominent virtue left without.

  The purpose of such rewards is not to discriminate, it is to encourage an aspiration towards virtue. The ordinary man has always mainly been concerned with his own affairs, foremost his livelihood, his pay, his food and family, but there have also always been those who have striven for that which lies beyond their own concerns. The utter selflessness which drives virtue is that which draws a distinction between the ordinary man and the virtuous man, the man without and the man with privilege in a politically just society. Some may not have time in their lives to properly give care and attention to others, some may simply not be interested, and the beauty of individual liberty is that they have the full right not to do so, but if a nation is to be a beacon of virtue, then it must encourage virtue, and those who willingly choose to care for none but themselves cannot expect to be rewarded in a politically just society.

  To recognise the nature of society as being a whole made up of many parts, which in turn are made up of individuals, is to recognise the role of every individual as a hero, member or danger to society. Every member and every hero deserves to participate in the administration of his society to some degree and has a right to exercise a certain degree of governmental influence. For the vast majority of citizens, this right is the right to vote; the right to vote for a representative is one of the most forthright expressions of membership of society and thus should only be reserved for citizens themselves. To vote is to have a say in the management of a nation, for it is the act of placing trust in a representative to offer opinions on behalf of the electors in a body which oversees the very function of society itself. The nobles who have proved themselves virtuous are so small that may have their own chamber, such as the former British House of Lords, which numbered some 1,000 members, whilst the Commons represents such a large number of people that they must send representatives to parliament in their place, since an Athenian-style assembly of all the people is impractical. Of course, the fact that an ordinary man chooses not to make an effort to be especially virtuous does not mean he should be excluded from exercising the rights which every citizen, elite or non-elite, is equally entitled to.19 Rights, such as the right to vote, can only be removed when a citizen has proved himself unworthy of membership of society, such as while serving punishment for a crime. Godwin’s notion of equality, that reason dictates that every man has the faculty to play an equal role in governance, does not align with the principle of natural inequality. Not every man has an aptitude for governance: in the management of the state, if he has an aptitude for governance, he might put himself forward for election; if he has an interest in government, he might vote for his preferred candidate; if he does not care he will not vote. That representative, elected by the commons will represent his people in the House of Commons, which in turn legislates with the Lords, who have separate interests, concerns and aptitudes, and so the interests of the subjects are included in the deliberations of governmental power, whilst those subjects without the time or interest to be further involved may waive such responsibilities.

  The political interests of the subject are given attention, but in a society structured around virtue, his interests are weighted according to his aptitude for virtuous actions for the benefit of society. It is ridiculous to say that every man knows what is best, but by allowing every man to have a say in electing a representative to one part of government, political discourse may be shaped by debate between the best and worst ideas, thus allowing citizens to influence the search for justice, which as we know is a branch of truth.

  ***

  Finally let us consider what makes a citizen: who deserves citizenship? A citizen is a member of society, and as we have seen, societies are defined by their history and the unique culture which has developed over many thousands of years of that history. Language, attitude, and, to a certain extent, race define societal membership. It has been observed in countries with mass immigration of ‘multicultural’ migrants, such as in Malmö in Sweden, and London and Birmingham in the United Kingdom, that those of the same race tend to gravitate towards one another and form culturally distinct communities. This is due to the natural affinity between races which share a culture, and the natural distrust of these cultures for those which are different.

  The very existence of nation states in the first place is enough to prove the ridiculousness of the modern multicultural agenda followed by many Western nations. Cultures do not naturally mix with members of each culture joining hands in happy appreciation of one another — they are naturally disposed to separate and follow distinct paths towards political and social justice, since both differ in worldview and customs and may view the other as immoral, barbaric or inferior in some way. The foolishness of forcibly mixing them has been proven amongst the modern Western left in paradoxes such as their continued support for immigration of Muslim migrants into Western Europe, and their support for LGBT liberation despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims oppose LGBT rights in general, and in fact seek the persecution of such minorities.20

  Now, we should not say that race is the be-all and end-all of societal cooperation, nor should all races apart from those native to a country be barred from entering it — that would be uncivil, if not prejudiced. A small number of those with different cultural backgrounds who accept and abide by the laws and customs of their new adopted nation, whilst remaining interested and in touch with their roots, can do great things to educate the people of a nation in other cultural values, even if these appear a little alien or unusual. In general, participation in a society is defined by attitude, but the history of the ethnicity native to that nation is crucial in forming these attitudes. The adoption of the sartorial, linguistic, moral and cultural attitudes of a particular nation defines the ability of an individual to participate in that society as a respected member of society. For those born in a nation with family stretching back generations, this is not difficult at all.

  Second, and arguably just as important, is contribution to society itself. Those born and raised in a nation will usually seek to work and raise a family in the community in which they were born, or at least in the same country. Immigrants arriving from other lands will need to prove that they have not only the cultural means to participate in society but also the right social attitude. They must be able to offer something to society which pre-existing members of society could not, and efficiently provide that which they offer. The complete self-sufficiency of a nation is often not possible, and is a characteristic of autocratic, closed societies (such as North Korea) but a government must remember that its primary duty is towards those who are already citizens of the nation.

  Society is built on citizens and subjects, and to become a citizen, one must prove oneself to be worthy of the values which bind that society together. Political just
ice and virtue in accordance with the morality of selflessness define the attitude of every good-minded citizen who wishes to make an active contribution. Economic migration in general is usually marked by a desire for personal gain, by dissatisfaction with the lot that an immigrant had in his home country, and so he seeks better elsewhere. But to seek something for personal gain is surely selfish, and if selflessness is virtue, then that immigrant would have to prove that he seeks to move elsewhere not merely for himself, but to provide a helpful service for the sake of others as well. Christ did not send his ministers out from the Holy Land for a better life but to bring their good works to the people of Europe, and they did not expect a welcoming reception. Those leaving their home countries are not born and raised with the same values as those who already have families in their destination country, and they must recognise that different cultures and races are naturally ‘racist’. That is to say, there is a natural discrimination between those different peoples with different histories, and the most powerful tool in overcoming that natural suspicion is a demonstration that the attitudes of the new nation have been adopted out of respect for the new nation.

  To be a citizen is to participate in society — it is a dutiful status to have, and it is not one to be taken lightly, certainly not for the sake of personal gain.

  Chapter VII

  The Monarch

  The role of the monarch in society is a prestigious one, and as we have discovered, even in nations where there is a general belief that the monarchy has been abolished, a monarchical system remains in place even if the title and nuances of the position have been changed slightly. We shall now turn our discussion towards what the role and power of a monarch should be, how the powers should be distributed and what respect the monarch should be afforded in the exercise of executive power.