Can feudalism be better than democracy?
How often do I get the chance to write about the transition from feudalism to democracy these days? Not often, is the answer. So when the opportunity arises, I grab it.
The island of Sark is one of those places you need a powerful magnifying glass to find on the map. It's the smallest of the Channel Islands, just off the northern coast of France - and it's in the news today because only now is it experiencing the uncertain pleasures of a democratic political system.
In the words of the official Sark government website: "Sark holds a unique position within the Channel Islands, which themselves hold an unusual position in Her Majesty's possessions, in that they are not part of the United Kingdom or Great Britain nor are they sovereign states. Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark have their own insular legislature, judicial system and administration."
Which means, for example, no income tax, no health service, no unemployment benefit and no old age pension. And until yesterday, no fully-elected parliament (which is called the Chief Pleas. Please don't ask me why.)
The main investors in Sark are multi-millionaire twin brothers, Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay. They're not great fans of feudalism, and they lobbied to introduce a fully-elected parliament, which they fondly believed would be much more likely to welcome their ideas for reform and modernisation.
It seems they were wrong. The islanders have elected a parliament made up overwhelmingly of representatives who were not on the Barclays' most-favoured list. As a result, the Barclays have started shutting down their businesses on Sark. "The islanders got what they wished for," was the stark comment from their lawyer.
I visited Sark once, more than 20 years ago. The man in charge, then as now, was the Seigneur, Michael Beaumont - I described him at the time as "a most friendly man with a relaxed manner and a ready smile ... he reminded me of the better kind of headmaster, living in semi-retirement somewhere, perhaps in East Anglia." Not a typical feudal ruler.
He owns every inch of Sark (it's not a vast area, about two square miles, with a total of 600 people living on it). He's the only man allowed to keep pigeons, and the only man allowed to keep an unspayed bitch. And now he has to come to terms with democracy.
More to the point, so do the islanders. According to the Barclays' lawyer, the brothers have been investing about £5 million a year in Sark - and that's now going to stop, because, in effect, the islanders elected the wrong people to parliament.
Democracy can sometimes be expensive. And 12 days before Christmas, about 140 people have lost their jobs. How odd that, in 2008, they should be reflecting that they might have been better off if they'd stuck with feudalism.
I'll be in a very different sort of democracy next week: on Thursday, we'll be broadcasting a special programme, live from Washington, in which we'll be discussing with a panel of experts Barack Obama's foreign policy priorities as he prepares to take office next month. I hope it'll provide us with a real insight into what changes to expect after George Bush's eight years in the White House. So I hope you'll be able to tune in, either on air or online.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Injecting a off-key element in the planned oratorios:
The people of nations everywhere approve "democracy" on the order of 98%.
Russia trailed, with only 62% paying lip service to democracy.
Now, ask "Do you favor a strong leader who does not have to bother with elections or parliaments?".
The people of 18 nations liked that leader principle. So did 30% of the US public and 26% of Britons.
References on request.
Complain about this comment
Trust me, this is nowhere near as foolish as it sounds to anyone who has read the great Tom Hodgkinson book 'How to be free'.
Far from being 'slaves' people living under old 'feudal' systems were well looked after, had enough food [which they grew themselves], paid a 'peppercorn rent', and the 'squire' or whatever had no interest in exploiting them, as they might be his best bet of remaining healthy himself if a raiding party turned up to ransack his house.
As opposed to 'democracy' where only the rapacious hedge fund managers hold sway [until it all goes pear shaped]. Okay, there may be some over-simplification going on here - but the advantages of democracy, and there are many, as I'm sure Tony Benn will testify to, will mean little if one swaps a benevolent Seigneur for the somewhat less than benevolent Barclay brothers.
I think the Sark people made the right decision - it may be painful in the short term, but being enslaved to the whims of the twins, knowing they would decamp at the first whiff of grapeshot or being upset - well, who needs 'friends' like that ??
And if they ran Sark the way they are running the Telegraph - well the island is better off shot of them, to be honest..
Complain about this comment
People and, of course, pundits among them, pay lip service to "democracy", but- A theory of human development has been advanced by Welzel, Inglehart and Klingemann (2003) that shows economic development making choice possible. With choice, people can then consider self-expression and such liberal values as protest, tolerance, and liberty. Life satisfaction is thereby enhanced and trust in people increases. All depends, however, upon the integrity of elites. As usually understood, democracy implies the rule of law. If the elite is corrupt, the democracy is only formal and not effective. By grouping nations into regions and cultural zones, one can measure the universality of such concepts. The World Values Study [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] the Europeans Values Group [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] the Vanhanen (1997) Resources Indices, Freedom House's civil and political rights measures (http://www.freedomhouse.org), and Transparency International's corruption index (http://www.transparency.org) provide measures that Welzel et al. used in their computerized analyses. Around 98% of the people of nearly all countries say that they support "democracy". Only 62% of Russians so claimed. However, if one asks "Do you favor a strong leader who does not have to bother with elections or parliaments?", then some 18 nations would agree, as would 30% of Americans and 26% of Britons. Ronald Inglehart (2003) has looked into how well mass attitudes predict a country's actual level of democracy. He used the sources of data above, as well as the New Democracies Barometer and the Latin American Barometer. Inglehart uses the "Self-Expressive Values" of tolerance, trust, political activism and freedom of speech as contrasted with the "Survival Values" of a society wherein needs of protection and nourishment consume available energy. It appears that economic development boosts "Self-Expressive Values" and, from there, democracy may emerge.
Complain about this comment
# 3 More mercifully expressed:
a) Economic development is necessary to move from Survival values to "Self-Expressive" values.
b) Effective democracy requires self-expressive values.
c) Tolerence of disliked views is a good indicator of effective democracy.
Perhaps 30% of mankind would prefer a benevolent dictator to democracy.
Complain about this comment
The fact that the 600 or so residents of Sark were happier living in feudalism than in democracy does not meen that feudalism is better than democracy. After all, there are more than 600 people living on the streets in London, yet no one is suggesting that having a house is the worse option. At least now the people of sark have the option to decide for themselvs whether they want their pseudo-feudalism or not.
Complain about this comment
Ha ha, as all Private Sector workers in the UK have to hand over most of their money to the robbing barons (a.k.a Labour), exactly how does Labour democracy differ from feudalism?.
CCTV cameras everywhere, tax on virtually everything, disposing of people with contrary views, freedom of expression banned, unelected leaders and a land full of peasant's (let's call them private sector workers) who have to work to safeguard the future of the nobility (let's call them public sector workers) and of course the right to hold people for months without charging them.
So again, I ask exactly where does Labour democracy differ from feudalism????.
Complain about this comment
#6
You ask where democracy differ from feudalism? Let's see:
Tax on everything- how about the fact that the taxes actually pay for the NHS and social services? I do not think the people in Sark have a hospital funded entirely by the landlord.
Unelected leaders- what do you mean by unelected? Perhaps you know that in Britain people vote for a party, which then elects the PM? Nothing at all like having a houndred-year old Queen and a bunch of useless royals who have not done a day's honest work in their lives.
Public and private sector workers- I am a private sector worker, my wife is a public sector wroker. I do not mind at all safeguarding hers (and mine) future.
Freedom of expression-well, your post is in the blog, is it not? What ban on expression are you on about?!
Complain about this comment
If you enjoyed the 9th century, Feudalism is better than democracy. Just ask the Taleban.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS