|
|
|
|
World Affairs
Cosmocracy: As the Next Stage in the Development of Democracy
Henryk D. Skolimowski
The meaning of democracy as we understand it today does not do justice to the original concept of enlightenment within a common social structure bound by cosmic powers. We need to devise a system that respects the comos, encompassing nature and all human beings and recognising the unity of all things.
Prologue
Our existing concepts have been in use for centuries and sometimes millennia. Many of them are worn out. We have extended the boundaries of our world and of our mind. In the process we have changed ourselves. We need new concepts in keeping with the world we have created. Cosmocracy is one of such concepts – one of the new windows through which we can look into the new world.
In one sense, cosmocracy pre-dates the historic political systems, including democracy. When human beings lived in unity with nature and the cosmos, they governed themselves according to the principles of cosmocracy – they knew that all powers come from the cosmos and reverentially obeyed the orders of the cosmos. Then they broke away from nature, created more anthropocentric forms, of which democracy was one; and thereby estranged themselves from nature. Cosmocracy, proposed here, closes the cycle and tunes us back to the essential unity of all things.
We don’t need only new concepts. We need concepts which are life-forms. Cosmocracy, which I am advocating, is not only a proposal for a new form of government but a proposal for re-arranging life – out of which a suitable, life-enhancing, non-exploitive form of government will naturally follow.
On the Origins and Meaning of Democracy
Political systems do not arise out of political expediencies but out of a deeper desire to actualise the hidden potential of man and of the human race. Thus political systems are extensions and embodiments of philosophies, religion, and ideologies. They are not merely political entities to be justified through their own assertions.
To understand a given political system in depth means to unravel its underlying philosophy, its history, its concept of the human being. A mere analysis of the meaning of the concepts of a given system, which confines itself to its internal structures, or worse still – merely statistical correlations within the system, is a facile exercise which leads to facile conclusions. True political science is nothing short of political philosophy.
Democracy did not arise merely because people wanted power (Demo-cratia – power of the people). It arose because the ancient Greeks wanted to actualise a certain ideal of man. Already in the sixth century BC, the Greeks were aware of their distinctiveness from their neighbours. They were especially aware that one of their ideals was to seek freedom. They referred to other people as barbarians not only because the others could not speak the language of the Hellas, but also because they were not free people.
While searching for the right freedom, the Greeks asked themselves: what is the best form of living together, provided, of course, that man is a social animal. Those who were anti-social, who refused to participate in public affairs, were called ‘idiots’ by the Greeks. The Greeks found that the best expression for social life was to live in a polis. Then came the question of how the polis should be governed to secure optimal freedom for the individuals. The natural answer was that it should be governed democratically. Thus democracy was born to safeguard freedom.
Freedom for the Greeks meant a vehicle for the development of man. It was not a license for ‘doing as you please’, nor did it mean an indulgence to satisfy one’s own whims. True enough, freedom was cherished in its own right – as a dimension of human existence. But it was also valued as a condition enabling individuals to pursue the path of self-realisation leading to enlightenment, and ultimately to godhead. The highest ideal, as we remember from Socrates and Plato, was the quest for self-enlightenment as a part of spiritual realisation. Thus freedom in this context served spiritual ends – of man’s self-realisation and ultimate fulfilment.
Let us emphasise the point that democracy, which is a vehicle of freedom and a pre-condition for it, serves not only social ends but also spiritual ends. It is a social structure which enables the individual to pursue a life of social richness and spiritual fulfilment.
Thus in the original Greek context, both freedom and democracy, served spiritual ends. These ends were determined by the conception of man – as envisaged by Greek philosophers and poets. Democracy wasn’t the crass politics of lobbying groups (as we think of it today), nor was it the pursuit of power by some people, but was rather a pursuit of enlightenment – within a common social structure. Our more recent conceptions of democracy, as a vehicle of power-seeking by rival groups, or as a vehicle for amassing individual power through legal means, is a far cry from the original conception of democracy.
Equally far removed from its original idea is the concept of democracy as freedom from constraints, especially from the constraints of the oppressive structures of the church. Democracy was not meant to be a secular structure. The Greeks did not see democracy as opposed to religion; rather as a vehicle for the realisation of a certain religious ideal. Only with the advent of the eighteenth century French Enlightenment, was democracy juxtaposed against religion. It was then wedded to secularism.
Now, let us see the picture of democracy as it has evolved in modern times. Within the confines of the French Enlightenment – inspired and guided by the ideals of reason and material progress – democracy and secularism are seen as co-defining each other. But that was not the way the Greeks saw democracy. In their context, democracy combined with reason was not inimical to the spiritual quest but indeed a condition and dimension of it. This point needs to be especially emphasised, namely, that democracy is not a servant of secularism or part of its definition, but on the contrary, it must serve spiritual ends and could be conceived as an aspect of the spiritual conception of man and to that end the redefinition of democracy along spiritual lines may be one of the most important tasks of our times.
The conclusion which clearly follows from our arguments is that it may have been a mistake to have subsumed democracy under secularism, and moreover connected the meaning of democracy with the progress of science and technology. This also might have led to the corruption of democracy.
It is now a fact that wherever we look, we see democracy in tatters. The various political systems which have assumed the name ‘democracy’ are pale shadows of the original intent. The fundamental reason is that democracy, or its various concepts have been placed in the wrong context, the context which invariably distorts its meaning and perverts its potentials and aspirations. And what do I mean by this ‘wrong context’ – the combined matrix of materialism, secularism and the conception of power as domination.
As we said at the beginning, every political system arises out of larger ideals concerning human destiny and what life is about. In the context of the post-Renaissance utopias (Thomas Moore, Francis Bacon, Campanella and others), which have promised salvation on earth through material progress and the subjugation of nature, democracy has become a hostage to the Faustian quest of grasping of power, of control and domination, of manipulation of some groups by other groups through legal and ‘democratic’ means.
In the present world, I see Finland, Sweden and Norway as somewhat approaching the original intent of democracy. Some people label these countries as socialist. If these countries are socialist, then one is bound to conclude that their form of socialism is part of the definition of democracy. Indeed, let us have the courage of our thinking, let us realise that the original conception of democracy, in ancient times, entailed a form of socialism. If you were only for yourself, unconcerned with public good, unwilling to work pro bono publico, you were called an ‘idiot’. Thus a form of solidarity, a form of compassion, of working for public good was universally expected and strongly endorsed. This I call ‘minimal socialism’. I submit that this minimal socialism is an inherent aspect of democracy and its defining characteristic. Put otherwise, cooperative behaviour is a pre-condition of both freedom and survival.
It follows from our argument that the United States cannot be called a democracy because it is too selfish a form of society, too deficient in public good. The pursuit of power and selfishness is not the pursuit of democracy. For this reason one would be inclined to call America a cratio-cracy – power to the powerful.
Now there is another term, which seems even more appropriate for the description of the overall socio-political system in the US. The United States is a society, which is youth-oriented. The adulation of the youth is intense and little attention is paid to the wisdom of the elders. The whole society could in fact be called infanto-cracy.
The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserts that, if there were a nation of gods, democracy would be a suitable form of government for them. For ordinary human beings it is too perfect a form of government. If Rousseau’s assertion is taken as gospel, then it provides a ready justification for our apparent failure to implement democracy in actual social realities: Democracy is too perfect a form of government for human beings.
However, upon a deeper analysis, we find that Rousseau’s assertion does not really make sense. For let us reason: if there were a nation of gods, they would not need to govern themselves democratically. They would govern themselves theocratically, by electing the god, who would be most omniscient. Indeed, they would not even need to elect such a god. They would automatically assume their responsibilities. They would not need any form of government.
Rousseau’s argument is deficient in yet another way. By its very meaning, democracy is not for gods but for people. The Greeks did not think they were inventing a political system for gods. Gods do not need our help to devise a political system for them. The Greeks were inventing democracy for themselves. And they tried to live it.
It may be argued that with the exception of the golden period of Athens, in the fifth century BC, democracy never existed elsewhere. Even if such were the case, this would not yet prove that democracy is impossible, but only that it is very hard to implement.
All cardinal virtues are difficult to attain. Yet we strive for them. These ideals are compelling not because they are easy to reach but because they present something highly desirable. And so it is with democracy. The very meaning of the term ‘democracy’ spells magic for us. Why? Not because of the abuses of democracy of which we are plainly aware. But because of our longing for a ‘perfect’ system.
In a sense democracy is a religious ideal. Perhaps the connotation which the ancient Greeks attached to the term still lingers on. We long for a political system which would be a vehicle for freedom and at the same time an instrument of self-perfectibility.
The True Sources of Power
Every political system is an embodiment of a specific concept of power. Theocracies are an embodiment of spiritual power. The Athenian democracy was an embodiment of the power of freedom and the power of self-realisation. The Industrial democracies have become embodiments of physical power. So often it is power in order to control and manipulate. Now the reduction of the meaning of power to its physical aspect is a corruption of power. The consequences of this corrupted concept of power for democracy are enormous and unfortunate.
The root cause of the corruption of power, within our political system and within the variety of forms of social life is, in my opinion, the progressive secularisation of the Western world and the Western mind. Secularisation is the determining matrix which begets materialism, and, accompanying it, the process of universal reification (or objectification or ‘thingification’) of the natural world and the human world. The result is a radical impoverishment of the cosmos. Both the human and the physical worlds are impoverished as we try to screen out the elements which do not fit into the quantitative-physical matrix. In the political and social spheres this signifies the impoverishment of democracy as well as the human relationships which we try to ‘objectify’, to reify, to quantify.
All of this has been the result of a philosophical mistake. This mistake was committed at the beginning of the seventeenth century, at the time when we started viewing the world through the spectacles of a mechanistic metaphor. This philosophical mistake is mainly responsible for the rise and increasing domination of the Faustian concept of man – a reckless creature, who lives only once, who has lost all his great inspiring ideals and who therefore seeks the meaning of life in living dangerously – often at the expense of other beings. This philosophical mistake is largely responsible for the malfunction of democracy.
The Greeks were independent and often arrogant but their arrogance was tempered with the awareness of hubris. We are the children of the reckless Dr. Faustus. And we have forgotten about hubris, and nemesis which follows it.
In brief, the philosophical mistake we made in the seventeenth century, assuming the universe is nothing but a clock-like mechanism, has borne countless negative consequences. Among them is the adulation of physical power and our submission to its imperative. Here is a graphic summary of the forces that have shaped the industrial democracies, and our individual lives.
SECULARISM
THE IDEAL OF MATERIAL PROGRESS
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AS TOOLS OF DOMINATION
THE MYTH OF PHYSICAL POWER
I will now outline an evolutionary approach to power, which enables us to understand present pathologies of power as well as those other conceptions of power, which, in the long run, are more important than physical power.
Power is an universal attribute of life. The source of all power is evolution. Entropy is the inexorable march of the universe towards chaos and disorder. Life is this unique organisation of matter, which is capable of combating entropy. The capacity of life to combat entropy is often called syntropy. Syntropy manifests itself not only in biological organisms but also in social and political institutions.
The ultimate purpose of all structures endowed with power (including political structures) is to combat entropy and enhance life. The institutions and people who contribute to syntropy represent a legitimate use of power. Let us emphasise the point: the purpose of power is the propagation of syntropy through the transfer of the will, which is life-enhancing. This is accomplished in the social universe through the creation of institutions which promote life in the long run and for the largest number of people.
We are aware that all systems are subject to entropy. Left to themselves, they have a tendency to degenerate. The degeneration or pathology of power reveals itself very clearly when, instead of being the instrument of syntropy, social and political institutions become the instruments of entropy. From an evolutionary point of view, such a state of affairs represents a degenerative shift. That this has happened to many present-day social and political institutions, is obvious to everybody. The enormously negative consequences of the concept of power as brute force is too conspicuous to be ignored.
Power without authority is illusory. This is why Jesus prevailed over Caesar. This is why Gandhi prevailed over the British. Gandhi’s example is luminous in its clarity. A little frail man against the might of the British Empire! I proposed earlier that power is an universal attribute of life. Gandhi’s moral authority is an enigma from a rational point of view. Why would this little man command such an enormous respect? Why would any man command any respect? The answer does not lie in a rational analysis but in the understanding of those deeper faculties which underlie moral authority.
There are three levels of power. The first level is power as physical control. The second level is power as authority. The third level is power as moral authority. What is the source of moral authority? It is the power, which resides in holy men, shamans, healers. These persons possess extraordinary faculties. These faculties become the basis of their authority. One has to be clear – moral authority or authority as such, is not given to us, Deus ex Machina. Rather it is a crystallisation of some inner powers which those who ascend to authority possess.
In traditional cultures, the chief was vested with political power because he possessed those extraordinary faculties which made him a medicine man or a man of vision. We can approach the relationship among the three realms of power from the other end. Because a given person possessed extraordinary inner faculties, he had authority. Because he had authority, he was vested with power.
We have now distinguished three conceptions or three realities of power:
1.Power conceived as domination through brute physical force, characteristic of most political institutions of our times.
2.Power conceived as authority which is a transfer of will. The person of moral authority compels others to act as the result of some moral imperative.
3.Power conceived as the possession of extraordinary inner faculties, whereby things are accomplished as though by magic, which only means that those who do not possess extraordinary faculties are at the mercy of those who do possess them.
In present Western culture, dominated by the mechanistic paradigm, power as authority is belittled, and power as the possession of extraordinary faculties almost completely ignored, much to our peril. Gandhi’s political power was no doubt the result of his moral authority. His moral authority, in turn, seems to have been the result of his special faculties which made him a holy man whereby people were inspired and renewed by his mere presence.
Let us draw some conclusions. Power is not an isolated concept. Its meaning is determined by the entire social, cultural and civilisational context. Since medieval times we have profoundly changed the context of Western society. Correspondingly we changed the concept of power.
The triumph of the West is the triumph of the Western context, and this means the triumph of Western secular ideology, with its concept of material progress and its concept of power. The three concepts, secularism, material progress, and physical power co-define each other. We should be aware that the triumph of the Western context includes both industrial capitalism and industrial socialism. The communist countries (while they still existed) accepted secular ideology, material progress, and power as domination in almost the same degree as we did in Western democracies.
We are now ready to broaden our discourse still further. All power resides in the cosmos. We are repositories of this power, including political systems, which are built of the elements of power which the cosmos provides.
Since the time the Bible was written; since the time the Greeks conceived of the polis; since the time Thomas Moore and Francis Bacon wrote their secular utopias; since the time Newton conceived his mechanics as the ultimate model for the explanation of the universe, since all these times, our knowledge of the universe has immensely broadened and our perception of our place in this universe has considerably changed, particularly during the last 100 years. All these changes challenge our imagination to conceive new political systems. We can no longer accept the biblical conception of man. Nor can we accept the role of the conquistador, in the service of whom all nature and all cosmos revolve. Nor can we accept the conception of democracy as serving a select few.
Eco-Cracy or Eco-Democracy
We are beginning to accept the idea of being with nature rather than against nature. The acceptance of this idea leads to reverence for natural systems. Now the idea of reverence for natural systems, translated into the language of political science means eco-cracy. Eco-cracy means recognising the power of nature and of life itself, it means observing the limits of nature, cohabiting with nature, not against it, creating ecologically sustainable systems, reverence for the planet and not its continuous plundering.
Genuine students of democracy, in our times, must realise that we are in the twenty-first century. Thus our understanding of political realities cannot be confined to the internal and often superficial analysis of the relationships within present governmental structures, nor even the analysis of the relationships between technology and society, for there is often a conflict between technology and nature.
Let us put it succinctly. Technocracy and Eco-cracy aim at fundamentally different goals. Technocracy aims at efficiency, control, manipulation and (so often) ‘profit now’. Eco-cracy aims at sustainable systems which can support and bring well-being to human species and other species in the millennia to come.
The industrial democracy, in truth, is no longer democracy. At best it is the pursuit of democracy within one nation, and often at the expense of other nations – if only indirectly, via complicated socio-economic mechanisms and determinants. This form of democracy does not deserve the name of democracy, as it does not lead to increased freedom, but to new forms of slavery among nations.
A true understanding of democracy in our times, when by democracy we genuinely mean an instrument of justice, freedom and social amelioration of people, not only in some pockets of the globe, but the world over, is one which inevitably ties democracy with eco-cracy and which insists that true democracy is an eco-cracy. Now if a new term is to be coined, we should introduce the idea of eco-democracy – not as a fancy term signifying the peppering of industrial democracy with some ecological jargon, but as a term signifying a new structure with profound social and political consequences.
In this interconnected and co-dependent world of ours, the notion of democracy must take on a new meaning. Democracy can no longer be limited to the city-state (the polis); it can no longer be limited to one nation. Democracy must be so conceived that its execution in one nation does not harm (if only indirectly) other nations and does not harm nature itself.
Let us put it in positive terms: Democracy in our times must be conceived as such, a form of government that benefits all nations in the long run, and which at the same time, respects and enhances natural systems. This inter-nation and inter-species democracy, I call eco-cracy or e-democracy. When we think how global and interconnected our problems are nowadays, this notion of democracy impresses itself on us as almost obvious. Moreover, a system which I describe as ecodemocracy, or a very similar one, is a necessity for our survival.
Ecodemocracy does not provide a set of ready blueprints concerning how to set up genuinely democratic forms of government within societies and among nations. Rather it re-conceives the meaning of power. From a new understanding of power comes a new enlightenment concerning the way we conceive ‘power structures’, whose purpose is not to oppress and manipulate, but to enhance life in the long run.
The purpose of all structures created either by evolution or by human industry is the enhancement of life. A truly enlightened philosophy is one which illumines the unfoldment of life, which is in sympathy with life growing and transcending itself, which helps the human mind to see the greatness of life, and which helps the human species to design with life, with nature, with the underlying structures and the laws of the cosmos. This philosophy I call eco-philosophy (Eco-Philosophy, Designing New Tactics for Living (1981); Living Philosophy – Eco-Philosophy as a Tree of Life, (1992); The Participatory Mind (1994), Henryk D Skolimowski).
Ecodemocracy, along with eco-philosophy, unapologetically maintains that if ecological habits are ruined, if the ecological ship goes down, our dexterous manipulations within the existing power structures will be seen as the proverbial shuffling of deckchairs on the Titanic.
Human systems must be in congruence with natural systems. Human welfare should be furthered alongside the welfare of other species. Such is the meaning of universal democracy. Such is the meaning of ecodemocracy.
Ecodemocracy includes among persons not only human beings but also other living beings. To extend the notion of person in such a way is not a violation of the existing usage. In many past and present systems of beliefs, all living beings have been accorded the status of persons and have been cherished as endowed with a divine spirit. The Native Americans have no problems in referring to foxes as brothers and ravens as cousins. Nor did St Francis have any problem with recognising birds and other animals as his brothers and sisters. These belief-systems, which recognise the bond of solidarity between all beings, are ipso facto expressions of the universal democracy or ecodemocracy, which I am advocating.
From Ecodemocracy to Cosmocracy
After explaining the notion of ecodemocracy or eco-cracy, the road to cosmocracy is now open. Cosmocracy emerges as we generalise the idea of ecodemocracy. Cosmocracy is a generalised idea of democracy in yet another way. Universal democracy, when extended to all beings, becomes cosmocracy. Cosmocracy simply signifies the recognition that all powers come from the cosmos. Celebrating the cosmos as the power-giver leads to a political system which is rooted not in a one-sided notion of physical power, nor in the idea of democracy for a select few (as the Greeks conceived of it), but in those tremendous forces which brought life and human societies to existence. Our global ecumenical thinking must inform us that we are all connected within the stupendous tapestry of the evolving cosmos. This recognition must inform us that seeking justice, freedom and good life cannot be confined to a few select societies. Cosmocracy is democracy for the entire cosmos.
Some semantic purists might argue that ‘democracy for the entire cosmos’ is a meaningless phrase. Let us see whether they are right. The expression simply conveys the idea that all forms of being are entitled to their existence. It furthermore conveys the idea that all beings are entitled to their respective forms of self-actualisation. This last point is important and needs to be commented upon further.
All life, including human life, is a process of self-actualisation. If we cannot understand that, then we cannot comprehend the meaning of our own lives. The right to self-actualisation is a continuation of the right to existence. Every being has the right to exist. And by the same token, every being has the right to self-actualisation. The right to self-actualisation is thus one of the main principles of universal democracy. Eco-justice becomes at this point cosmic justice, which becomes the celebration of life unfolding. And that is what cosmocracy is all about. The idea of self-actualisation emerges as one of major importance for both ecodemocracy and cosmocracy.
Cosmocracy which proclaims universal justice for all beings, and the right to self-actualisation of all beings, is perhaps a novum against the present political scene. But the tenets of cosmocracy are not new vis-á-vis the major spiritual traditions of the past. When the Buddhists talk about compassion as a vehicle for helping others in their self-actualisation, indirectly they attempt to bring about cosmic justice. We may go a step further. When we contemplate Buddhism, Christianity and other major religions in some depth, we can see them as vehicles for self-actualisation of individuals.
Self-actualisation and self-fulfilment are thus important gospels of major religions. The ideal of cosmic justice is in accord with the main tune of world religions. However (and here is the rub), in most major religions (with the notable exception of Buddhism), self-actualisation is limited to humans. Within the framework of cosmocracy, self-actualisation embraces all beings. To claim the right to self-actualisation for all beings is not only reasonable but necessary once we understand the intricate, interconnected and exquisitely woven embroidery of the cosmic evolution of which we are an intrinsic and celebratory part. Cosmocracy signifies not only the proclamation of cosmic justice, but a celebration of the cosmos.
Cosmocracy is here presented as a political structure which attempts to make sense of self-actualisation on the cosmic scale, and also on the scale of social arrangements within human groups and nations. Cosmocracy is a restatement of the Kantian moral imperative: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature." We generalise Kant’s principle and assert thus: Act in such a way as if the maxim of your action were to become a yardstick of cosmic justice. Such a principle would not be a bad foundation for a political system of the future – whether we call it cosmocracy or by some other name.
Indeed we need something as universal and as far reaching as cosmocracy to bring the human family together. Furthermore, we need a comprehensive framework of cosmocracy to be able to talk intelligibly about the phenomena which are connected but which appear disparate because of our present limited frameworks. The meaning of justice; the meaning of democracy itself; the meaning of rights of unprivileged cultures; the rights of defenceless animals, and the rights of downtrodden nature are inherent parts of our present problem-ridden planet. Cosmocracy enables us to talk about these phenomena in one coherent frame of reference.
Participatory Politics in the Participatory Universe
The idea of cosmocracy as a possible blueprint for future political systems receives powerful support from recent explorations in physics, and from the picture of the universe unveiled by sub-atomic and quantum physics. The broadening and deepening of our view of the universe is one of the most exciting aspects of our times. For the first time since the Renaissance, we have arrived at perspectives, visions and concepts which enable the physicist, the social scientist, the humanist and the religious thinker to feel that they belong to the same unified cosmos; unified not through a unified physical theory but in a deeper, more embracing sense.
The insights of this new holistic universe have not sufficiently penetrated political science, which desperately tries to present itself in the image of the old Newtonian science – by insisting on atomising and quantifying phenomena and putting them in the physical(ist) framework, while physics, at the cutting edge, has far transcended the rigid, atomistic precepts of Newtonian mechanics; and now tends to treat the whole universe holistically and through concepts which certainly are trans-physical – if the physical is defined as the tiny material corpuscles which Newton postulated. We are at the dawn of a new understanding of the universe. Political scientists should become aware of it.
The astrophysicist John Archibald Wheeler may have been the first to announce, in an articulate way (in the early 1970s), the idea of the participatory universe. He wrote, "The universe does not exist ‘out there’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are participators. In some strange sense this is a participatory universe."
In the early 1980s, drawing from the insights of Wheeler, on the one hand ("In some strange sense this is a participatory universe"), and building on the insights of Teilhard de Chardin ("We are evolution conscious of itself"), I have developed the theory of the participatory mind. This theory, on the one hand, attempts to vindicate the claims of the ‘New Physics’ about the participatory nature of the universe; and, on the other hand, attempts to fill the missing dimension in Teilhard’s opus – which wonderfully describes the unfoldment of evolution but misses the role of the mind in the whole process. Consciousness is one of the key terms in Teilhard’s theory. But strangely, it is consciousness as if there was no mind. The theory of the participatory mind provides an epistemological foundation to Teilhard’s cosmology.
The participatory theory of mind maintains that our world is the creation of our mind. But not in a solipsistic manner a la Berkeley (esse-percipi), but in a participatory manner: we have become aware that we can elicit from reality only that much as our mind is capable of conceiving. This is precisely the sense in which we say that we dwell in a participatory universe.
We elicit what is potentially ‘out there’ in continuous acts of participation. Participation is of the essence not only in our cognitive acts but also in our social activities and political endeavours. Tell me what you participate in and I will tell you who you are; and what the meaning of your life is.
We become that in which we participate. As we participate so we become. If we participate all the time in trivial matters, we become trivial persons. These ideas are anticipated by the ancient teachings in Hindu philosophy and in Buddhism. Thus we read in the Upanishads: "In truth who knows God becomes God" (Mundaka Upanishad). The matter is even more strikingly expressed in Dhammapada, one of the chief texts of Buddhism: "What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow. Life is the creation of our mind."
Already at the beginning of the nineteenth century William Blake was aware of this strange process of interaction between reality and our inner knowing faculties. He wrote:
But to the eye of the man of imagination
Nature is Imagination itself.
As Man Is, So He Sees
The ancient Greeks anticipated it all. Thus Parmenides has said: "No mind, no world." This powerful insight is very contemporary. When spelled out, it unveils the structure of the universe which is quite different from the one we are used to.
We now have the background for connecting our earlier discussion of cosmocracy with the more far-reaching ideas of the ‘New Physics’, particularly those concerning the participatory universe.
All political systems are about participation. All democracies are about participation. But the nature of this participation – its depth and ramifications – are different in different epochs. The Athenians of the fifth century BC enjoyed a great democracy. Their participation in the affairs of the state, and of the cosmos at large was deep, multifarious and intense. They thought of themselves as large people, and indeed cosmic people, and participated in the cosmos accordingly. To this very day the word ‘cosmos’ is used in everyday Greek language to designate that in which we partake and of which we are a part.
In the industrial world, we have reduced the meaning of democracy to a much narrower scope precisely because we have diminished the forms of our participation in it. We are consumers, not participators. In some sense consumption is a form of participation. But here is the rub: it is such a lowly and diminished form of participation that it cannot lead to genuine fulfilment. Self-realisation through consumption is a parody of older spiritual quests.
Industrial democracies favour expertise and specialisation. This is another reason why they discourage our participation as complete and whole beings. They prevent us from becoming self-reliant, independent, and complete. In a subtle but pervading way they inhibit us as spiritual beings. Industrial democracies are controlled by the ideology of secularism. In the secular world there is no place for God and for higher ideals, including self-actualisation in the spiritual sense. This is one of the reasons why present democracies are a poor vehicle for self-actualisation.
One of the central points, which I wish to make is as follows: The plight of democracy and the demise of the quality of life of Western people is the result of the shrinking scope of our participation in the wake of which comes the impoverishment of our relationships with the cosmos – all of which are the consequences of our cripplingly narrow world view.
Summary
Democracy is never a thing in itself but always a set of structures and institutions, which reflect the world view of a people. Therefore, our attempts to salvage democracy or to build new sustainable models of democracy cannot be successful if we are to remain in the old crippling paradigm. The resurrection of democracy must go hand in hand with an erection of a new world view.
A truly participatory democracy is not a superficial game of playing with your personal computer – and punching choices, which others have programmed for you. A genuinely participatory democracy signifies a genuine participation – in the vast riches of the cosmos. Participatory democracy in the participatory universe, as unveiled by the ‘New Physics’, signifies cosmocracy. Cosmocracy is democracy for the entire cosmos.
Cosmocracy or eco-democracy can be illuminated from two different perspectives: that of the participatory universe ("We are inescapably bringing about that which appears to be happening"); and that of the ecological paradigm: our understanding of sustainable social systems invariably leads us to ecocracy and, upon deeper analysis, to cosmocracy.
Thus the concept of ‘cosmocracy’ is not a fancy linguistic gimmick. It is born out of our deeper awareness of how things are connected in this extraordinarily complex and interdependent universe in which our thinking and our minds are not static photographic plates but real movers of history as well as shapers of the nature of reality.
If the concept of cosmocracy appears too grandiose and too much to swallow, the question is: what else is there to get us out of the present rut? Democracy is a beautiful concept with a glorious past. But it was invented twenty-five centuries ago! Even the best concepts wear out. "All things wear out," as Heraclitus insisted. We need new visions and new concepts for the new world we have created. Our modes of knowledge, our categories and concepts are old and stale. We need new windows on the universe we have erected. Cosmocracy is one of these windows. It is a worthy successor of democracy. It is a daughter of democracy which has outgrown its parent.