On the Nature of the Principal Civic Contracts

Through thousands of years of civic experimentation, human beings have come to believe in a few inalienable human rights. The most fundamental of these rights is the right of an individual to live free. In these modern times hardly anyone will argue against this notion. Slavery still exists in some forms in many regions, but over all, the world has rejected the idea of one man's complete subjugation of another.

I believe a parallel can be drawn between the individual human right to live free and that of the right of a group of people to be free of subjugation. Just as freedom is a basic individual right, communities too have the right to ask for independence from other groups of people--their right of self-determination.

To put it another way, you can say that the lives of modern human beings are spent under two canopies of protection, one canopy encompassing the other. The outer cover we humans live under is that of a country, and the inner cover is that of a government. Just a little while ago, both canopies were one and the same thing. In those days, a government defined a country. The geographical extent to which a king exercised his government defined the limits of his realm. Having a country first and a government later -- or having the form of government drastically changed while the geographical boundaries of the country remained intact -- is a relatively new concept. And these two--a country and a government--are the most overarching of all civic contracts every human being, willingly or unwillingly, enters into.

One can say that in the new scheme of things you first form a country, then you decide on how you would like to be governed, and then you get people to form the government based on those ideals. But even here, the two civic contracts, country and government, are inter-related. People forming a new country do not go blindly into a contract of such far-reaching consequences. They have preliminary ideas on how, after the formation of the country, they would like to be governed. And the creators of a country wish to see "their" government a just representation of its people--after all, this was the very reason they asked for independence (a separate country): they expect the government to be the manifestation of the aspirations of its people. Trouble brews when, after the formation of a country, a group or an individual grabs control of the helm and runs the country against the will of the populace. Typically, this phenomenon takes place a little later in the life of a new country. The generation that enters into the first civic contract--that of a country--is normally very cautious in the matters of governance. It is the later generations that get a chance to critically analyze the two basic contracts (that of a country and a government) they were born under. It is the baggage of the previous generations that they gladly carry in some cases and refuse to burden themselves with in others. The contracts that are drawn with eyes looking far ahead in the future survive the test of the times. Problems arise when the form of a government in a country changes, bringing it into direct conflict with the aspirations of the creators and the people of that country. In such instances, when a group of people controlling power has negated the idea of a representative government, then that group has in fact violated the initial contract.

In most cases where the nature of the second principal contract (government) has been changed, some groups are content with the changed form of the government, others are not. Now it is up to the discontented groups of people whether they want to stay with the original contract and work to correct the aberration, or if they believe that the violation is such that it has rendered the initial contract null and therefore feel convinced that they should terminate their own adherence to that contract. In other words people could decide that they would like to change the government and bring in another set of people which would govern them in conformance with their aspirations, or they could decide they have lost all hope and that no matter what they do, they would end up with the same kind of people in government and therefore decide to leave the initial contract--the contract under which they defined themselves to be part of a particular country. At this point "freedom" is demanded, a new country is asked for.

The world unequivocally condemns individual slavery. Shouldn't the slavery of one group to another be denounced with equal fervor? A group oppressed is a group enslaved. But how do we define oppression? How much oppression constitutes group slavery? It is obvious that there can be no hard and fast rules. Whenever a group, a community of people, in unison, feels that it is being oppressed and that it wants to govern itself, then the community has a moral right to demand its own country.

A community can be defined in many different ways. When a group of people thinks that a particular bond (that of culture, language, heritage, religion, geography, etc.) between its members makes it unique in comparison to others, then that group falls into the category of a community. Any such group, when it feels oppressed, has the right to ask for self-governance. It is pretty much given that the community asking for independence must form a majority in a geographical location they want to see independent as their own country.

We must realize that there is nothing sacred about any country. A country is just a civic contract. Any country that ever obtained independence from another country--and I can't think of a single country which did not free itself up from some other state some time in history--must understand that, just like the people of that independent country once felt oppressed and felt it their God-given right to ask for independence, in the same way any community now living in that country may feel misgoverned and thus has the right to ask for independence. Countries come and go. Presently, California is smug to be with the U.S.A. But if, some time in the future, things change and Californians are not treated well by the people of the rest of the country, then the state of California would be justified in disassociating itself from the U.S. And the same is true for constituent regions of other countries. Things change. People and communities can develop attitudes that are unfair, or just plain mean. Governments can become oppressive. In the domain of metamorphosing realities, demands for a change in the principal civic contract must be acceptable. If the rulers of a country want to see their country united, with individual communities not grappling for independence, then it is incumbent upon them to rule judiciously and keep the various constituencies of that country happy.

Political scientists of our time need to address a very important issue: How, in today's world, should a dissenting group of people peacefully come out of one of the principal civic contracts on which our committee of nations is based without being labeled terrorist? In the present chaotic international environment, where there is no instrument in place for non-violently demanding a separate homeland, people resort to violence when demanding for independence. Forming a new, independent country is especially tough when the other party--the party that presently has control over you--is not ready to let you go.

Some rulers see governance as a great burden they have to bear with prudence--the government being an instrument to serve. Others see it as a joyful power trip in which sadistic pleasure is derived from having control over others. For the conscientious, governing a group of people is great responsibility. The ruler is a guardian of the people; responsible for their safety and well-being. Rebellions seldom take place against conscientious governments. Most cries of secession are heard where rulers find power intoxicating; where power is coveted and, when acquired, jealously guarded. Groups of people demanding independence in such a setup are bound to see great resistance. Oppressive regimes are even more cruel when a group of people demands freedom. That is why separate countries should not be demanded for lighter reasons.

The world is a very violent place today, but no one can stop us from dreaming. Let's dream. Let's dream of a world that is conscious of peoples' right to demand independence and a community's right to revamp the principal civic contract at will. In that ideal world, there will be an International Organization for the Rights of Communities that would listen to demands for independence from groups of people; a legitimate framework would be set up to draft the initial contract anew. The International Organization for the Rights of Communities would come up with a non-violent strategy to be followed in demanding a separate country. The strategy would probably read like the following:

1. The community demanding independence must first get organized. It is important for the leadership of that community to obtain a vote of confidence from the general public, convincing the majority that independence is really the best option. It is important to identify a trusted leadership because power will be handed off to it when the oppressive government relinquishes control. [In the present chaotic situation the more vocal--and often the most belligerent--element of the group claims to be representing the group. This happens because it is hard to define representation for a group of people who are not officially represented by any formal organization.] The International Organization will be cognizant of the fact that after gaining independence things might not change much for the common members of the group, or worse, the group might end up being more misgoverned than before. This is why the International Organization will ask each member of the community demanding independence to actively participate in the political process. All of them would have to thoroughly review the draft of the new civic contract before accepting it.

2. After the initial step of organization and taking a vote of confidence, the community leadership should formally demand independence from the incumbent government. Preferably, a deadline should be set up. The leadership should let the world body know of its demand of independence.

3. Ideally the negotiations between the community leadership and the incumbent government will work, and through the interference of the International Organization for the Rights of Communities independence will be given before the deadline. In case this does not happen, the group demanding independence will be justified in using all non-violent means to indicate displeasure: Quit working, paying bills--complete non-cooperation. Hopefully the non-cooperation of the community will make it clear to the incumbent government that it does not have much choice besides giving independence to that group.

Adoption of the above strategy would help in peacefully resolving the conflicts related to the nature of the principal civic contract.

Is anyone at the UN or amongst the current world leadership dreaming with us, or are we going to keep using the old formula of violent, bloody freedom movements?