Politics does not rise or fall alone.
Man functions upon a philosophical and theological presupposition, consciously or unconsciously. He lives in and through his vision of reality concerning God, man, and the world. There are two types of change for a man: one is a change in the vision, and the other is a change of the vision. What happens to an individual also happens at a group level. When we look at the social fabric of a group, about politics, culture, or economy, there is always an underlying philosophical/theological position (or a range of positions). A man is not a beast, nor a robot. A beast or a robot has no philosophy, but man cannot not to have philosophy.
This simple fact of human nature has been overlooked by the pragmatic, anti-philosophical ethos of the past century. This is particularly so in the political and economic realm (often regarded as “secular”). The proponents of various political theories think they all function upon axioms: no argument, just accept them. Some talk about the natural right of man; some talk about the natural mechanism of oppression and liberation. Since their position is axiomatic, it can be imposed upon any group of people and work as magic[1]. This self-confidence had blinded them from seeing the ground they stand upon is eroding. And the collapse of this social experiment is doomed.
It was so in the old days of ancient kings. The legitimacy of a king was established on violence and then blood, but fundamentally, on a supposed divine right, which was universally claimed in the East and West. This presupposition was taken for granted for millenniums. Kings came and kings passed, but the presupposition remained. Until the early modern era in Europe. A revolution or a series of revolutions happened. Out of what? Out of a revolution of thoughts. The kings and their defenders were taken by a surprise. They still had faith in the same old right of governance. But the philosophical presupposition giving birth to or supporting such right had vanished. Nowadays, the divine right of kings is an antique in history, except under some highly oppressive regimes.
The lesson is that: all social institutions are essentially experiments. Taking a physical or chemical experiment as analogy: a certain result requires certain conditions. Remove such conditions, no such result. But unlike a lab experiment, the social experiment is much more volatile and people are far less attentive. The intensity and frequency of social changes have drastically increased over the last two to three centuries. The lift span of political institutions has become increasingly short and fragile. The last vestige of modernity is probably liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy experimented in Western Europe and North America is not perfect. But it is unprecedentedly successful in terms of bringing a flourishing civilization. Its merits and demerits are not our interests here. Our position is that it is a noble alternative to the various forms of totalitarianism, religious or atheistic, thus worth reforming and defending. But how?
Many are defending. A large number of them seem to have fallen into the kings’ mindset in the early modern era. They understand democracy axiomatically and defend it pragmatically. This is a strategy doomed to fail, as history has showed before. Liberal democracy was not born out of a stone. It was never axiomatic as it had never been heard of since man stood on this earth. Even nowadays, many do not accept its basic tenets, and that is the reason totalitarianism has market. Liberal democracy is not axiomatic, it is a social experiment. As a political theory, it was rooted in Judeo-Christian view of man’s dignity; as a political practice, it was conditioned by a social consensus accepting, at least nominally, a Judeo-Christian heritage. “All men are created equal” is a philosophy, not any philosophy, but one particular philosophy out of a particular theology. You will never get that anywhere else.
The superficiality and short-sightedness of those defending liberal democracy is lethal, tragic, and if viewed from one perspective, even comic. He is fighting vehemently while unnoticing the horse he rides on is falling, the earth he runs on is fracturing. The best defense is to consolidate the philosophical, theological, and religious foundation. And this is what liberal democracy is failing miserably and presumptuously. They think they can uphold liberal democracy by asserting it again and again, or by boasting it. It did not come that way, and it cannot be defended in that way.
It is very possible that we are approaching the end of this great social experiment. As the old Rome collapsed, the new Rome will collapse too.
For Christians, this social experiment is also a gift, through which Christianity has spread to the corners of the earth. Some Christians once took the old Rome as the Kingdom of God; Some Christians once took (still do) the new Rome as the Kingdom of God. Probably this is another occasion for us to contemplate the City of God, as was done last time.
[1] Totalitarianism by definition is imposed, but liberal democracy cannot, as evidenced by the history 20th century.
