"'[The universal state's] competent people become untrustworthy from their very competence; anyone who can make a decision may make one the Imperium does not like. Incompetence grows with the very suspiciousness and centralization. Defense and civil functions alike begin to disintegrate. What can that provoke except rebellion?'"
-Poul Anderson, A Knight Of Ghosts And Shadows IN Anderson, Sir Dominic Flandry: The Last Knight Of Terra (Riverdale, NY, pp. 339-606 AT III, pp. 387-388.
The same problem exists in Isaac Asimov's Galactic Empire and also on SM Stirling's and David Drake's planet Bellevue where General Raj Whitehall wins a major victory and is immediately recalled to account for his actions.
Similarly, shortly before the Fall of the West:
"Then there's the caliber of scientist we have working for the government now. The few first-rate men we have are so harassed by the security set-up - and by the constant suspicion that's focused on them because they are top men in their fields, and hence anything they might leak would be particularly valuable - that it takes them years to solve what used to be very simple problems.'"
-James Blish, They Shall Have Stars IN Blish, Cities In Flight (London, 1981), pp. 7-129 AT PRELUDE, p. 15.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I think this problem of leaders fearing able subordinates out of terror they might conspire against Emperor, King, President, Governor, etc., is a very real one. A stable, self-confident society will be one where the rulers don't fear their subordinates, and one where the latter don't have to fear that being competent endangers them. Easier to describe than to achieve, I know!
Ad astra! Sean
The Roman Empire and its successor, Byzantium (which always regarded itself as "Roman") had this problem in spades, because its monarchy had its institutional beginnings in a successful coup/civil war -in a literate era-.
So its culture retained a memory of the pre-monarchic "republic" (actually a sort of quasi-aristocratic oligarchy) and of the political events which led up to the establishment of one-man rule.
This was crucially important in producing the ongoing legitimacy crisis of the Empire; the first Emperor was simply the must successful general/warlord, -and everyone knew it-.
Conversely, monarchy (and most religions) have their origins in "mythic time", in which the narrative is wholly congruent with the institution's self-image.
Hence medieval European monarchies had a very strong sense of dynastic legitimacy.
Incidentally, the classic Islamic caliphate had the same problem as the Roman Empire, because (particularly after the sunni-shia split and the first few "rightlfully guided" caliphs) the supreme authority was violently usurped, successfully, and what was originally a religious-political position validated by charisma and quasi-election became a straightforward hereditary monarchy claiming divine sanction, a caesaropapism much like Byzantium's.
In turn, the Caliphs eventually became reduced to puppet status by their slave-soldiers(*), or outright dispensed with.
But the Islamic world has been haunted by the ghost of the Caliphate ever since, making political legitimacy very difficult; rather like the West being haunted by the ghost of Rome's universal state, but worse.
(*) slave-soldiers were a feature of the Islamic world for a long time because they afforded a way around the intense clan-family rivalries endemic to Arab society -- slave mamluks/jannisaries were by definition outsiders who didn't have local ties of clan and tribe. Of course -they- could seize power in their own right eventually.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, the Roman/East Roman Empire had a very problem in trying to institutionalize and stabilize a long lasting order or method of succession. And the remaining European monarchies still exemplify that strong sense of dynastic legitimacy that was characteristic of Medieval and post Medieval monarchies. It might have been different in England if Oliver Cromwell had been succeeded as Lord Protector by his able son Henry, rather than the ineffectual Richard. But then the Cromwellian dictatorship might have simply become another monarchy itself, under a different name.
I have read that Sunni Muslims did not insist that the Caliph had to be descended from Mohammed, which would explain why there were dynasties of Caliphs, not all descended from the "Prophet" or his family: Ummayads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Osmanlis. The Shias insisted the "true" caliph had to be descended from Mohammed.
Yes, the later Abbasid caliphs ended up being made or unmade by the Mamelukes or factions at court. And more than one Ottoman Caliph was murdered or deposed by their slave soldiers, the Janissaries. But it was agreed that only a descendant of Osman, the Ottoman founder, could be the Sultan/Caliph. So the Janissaries or factions at court would place on the throne an Osmanli of their choice.
It was in Egypt, after Saladin's short lived dynasty was ousted, that we see the Mamelukes taking over and openly ruling as Sultans of the "Slave Dynasty." Which Poul Anderson himself mentioned in "The Only Game in Town."
Ad astra! Sean
There was a "Slave Dynasty"in Delhi, too -- more than one throughout the Islamic world; there were several in Africa too.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That I had not known! A dynasty of "slaves" certainly seems very odd to me! I assume this Indian "Slave Dynasty" was pre-Mughal?
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment