[ p. 130 ]
We Must atways bear in mind that any theoretical systems of human society are not only unrealizable and have never existed, but in toto represent an impossibility, a state of affairs in which it would be unbearable to live. Real life at any moment in history has always been “a period of transition,” having many elements of various past systems. No radical change, no revolution has ever been able to achieve more than a part of its program of which life has made a synthesis with many elements of the past.
What is required is not a detailed and in itself closed system of the future, but a clear understanding of the basic principles which show us the road leading in the right direction.
Whether the next step will be a new League of Nations, regional groupings, continental organizations, a union of the English-speaking world, or a world government, is of secondary importance. The essential fact is that we understand what the principles of democracy mean in twentiethcentury terms, and that on their basis the process of international integration should start.
[ p. 131 ]
Following that natural evolution any one of the abovementioned constructions would help us a great step forward.
In some kind of an international charter we have to restate the principles of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. What are those basic principles of democracy? And what is their meaning in the middle of the twentieth century?
First: The right of freedom. In the original documents it was clearly defined that freedom consists in the “power of doing whatever does not injure the freedom of another.” Translated in the international field, this means that every nation must be free and independent, but only insofar as the power of exercising this right does not injure the freedom and independence of other nations. At present these limitations of national independence and national freedom are non-existent and are not defined, and without such definition, the freedom and independence of the nations are meaningless. They only lead to wars.
Second: According to the original charters of democracy, equality means that a law must be applied in equal measure to every individual, whether it protects a man or punishes him. Translated in the international field today, this principle means that every nation must be equal under the law. As the world is organized today, there is no international law whatsoever, and without such a law “equality” of nations is meaningless, and only leads to wars.
Third: The original charters of democracy guarantee to each man the right of security, and state that security results [ p. 132 ] from the co-operation of all to secure the rights of each. This means with respect to international application that the security of each nation can result only from the collaboration of all the other nations to secure the rights of each one of them. This definition clearly outlaws conceptions like neutrality or non-intervention, which can never assure security to any nation, and which are contrary to the essence of the basic charters of democratic principles. We have seen how the disregard of the original conception of security, how neutrality and non-intervention led each nation which believed in them to wars and destruction.
Fourth: Yn the original charters of democracy, it is stated that sovereignty resides essentially in the community—in the universality of the citizens. They explicitly state that no individual and no group of individuals can exercise sovereign authority. As the world is organized today, it is obvious that sovereignty does not reside in the universality of citizens, but that contrary to the spirit of the original charters of democracy sovereign rights are exercised by groups of individuals we call “States.”
The existence of some hundred sovereign states exercising sovereign authority is in total contradiction to the democratic conception of sovereignty which must rest in the community. It is, therefore, imperative to carry out the separation of powers in this field, to give back to the community absolute sovereignty and to give individual nations and individual states only such sovereign authority which has its source in universal sovereignty.
‘These are the first steps towards a constitutional life in world affairs. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of [ p. 133 ] the Citizen says: “Any society in which the guarantee of the rights is not secured or the separation of powers not determined has no constitution at all.”
As to the duties of the individual nations towards each other and to the community, this was also clearly expressed in the great democratic charters by the thought that anyone who violates the law declares himself to be in a state of war with society.
These principles must be made clear and be codified now, during this war. They must be written in gold letters on our flags; they must become the soul of our soldiers; they must be on all wave lengths.
Our victory must be the victory of these new principles on the basis of which we can build a new and better world society. These principles and the promise of a way of life they hold out to us are our most powerful weapon. It is the only weapon that can give sufficient fire power to our bombers, tanks and warships.
The proclamation of these principles cannot be postponed, to be discussed after victory. They are the wings, they are the only historical justification of our coming victory.
Always in history, great revolutionary changes take place during wars. We must mold the amorphous masses on the five continents now, before they become rigid again in a form contrary to our ideas.
We must act now, during the present war, because no military victory can give us the guarantee that it will create a reasonable world. Only a political victory can do that. [ p. 134 ] And we can never have political victory without waging a political war simultaneously with the military war. _
It was one of the great tragedies of our time that the democratic nations and the democratic governments did not grasp—and still do not grasp—the fact that a gigantic political struggle is going on, of which the military war is merely one symptom.
We have to lead mankind according to historical necessities or we shall lose the leadership. We are now in the midst of a political and social revolution of which the international war is only one part. We must be crusaders of new ideas. We must not continue to be defenders of futile past systems, the re-establishment of which has always been proved throughout history to be Utopian.
The abolition of international and economic particularism is a historical necessity. The restriction of national sovereignties and the beginning of the process of international integration will be the result of this war.
This development can take place in two forms: either by mutual agreement between the hitherto independent and sovereign nations or through forceful imposition.
Should the new democratic order have to be created by compulsion—and according to historical precedents it most probably will—then it is essential that the Anglo-American nations should undertake the task. They must undertake it not only because on the proper reorganization of the world will depend the survival of their own democratic institutions and the very existence of their peoples, but also because the past few centuries have proved that in the present phase of human history Anglo-American supremacy means [ p. 135 ] general progress for all mankind, whereas all attempts at domination by any of the other potential world powers always meant reaction to the democratic evolution.
The democratic nations must be aroused from their static and defensive conceptions and become imbued with the dynamic spirit of attack and conquest. Only ideals and principles can achieve this.
We shall not have victory if we want only to be left alone and to defend what we possess. If the democratic peoples really value their principles, cherish their freedom, and are attached to their way of life, they cannot accept or tolerate the establishment in their neighborhood of political and social conceptions representing the complete negation of their own principles. They must have the iron will to spread their ideas all over the world and to fight the enemies of their conceptions and ideals wherever they may be. We cannot win this war for democracy without convictions.
And there is only one criterion of real conviction—the will to spread it.
If we enforce the laws guaranteeing freedom of man everywhere, and make clear what these freedoms are, providing in the same laws for the limitations and the defense of this freedom; if we can make clear through what limitations we can obtain real freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly; if we enforce the principles of international relationship which are identical with the principles of relationship between individuals in a democratic state; if we proclaim the inter-dependence of nations, limiting national sovereignty, outlawing neutrality and creating an organization having the force to safeguard these [ p. 136 ] principles, to prosecute and punish any nation violating the established laws and principles—then it will be of small importance what external forms nations or groups of nations adopt.
Our aim should not be to abolish variety and diversity in this world. The cultural and traditional varieties existing between the different nations are the greatest charm of our existence. Our aim must be merely to stop these varieties from degenerating to armed conflicts, to guide the eternal struggle for life into more civilized channels and to.create a political order that will at last make possible the solution of the economic and social problems of our age.
It looks as if political unity were the only possibility of maintaining and safeguarding cultural diversity.
The outcome of this war and the shape of things in the coming century will in a large measure depend upon by whom and under what conditions these foundations of a rejuvenated democratic world will be laid. A great handicap for the peaceful and freedom-loving nations is that today they are led by a ruling class completely devoid of vision, talent, will power and capacity for action. It is most doubtful whether those people who have lost the peace and appear to be incapable of understanding the real significance and character of this world war will be able to create a new world order superior to the past.
The selection of leaders is an essential problem of any democratic organization. As this intricate machinery is operating today, it appears that the quality of statesmanship, vision, wise leadership, self-sacrifice and capacity for action [ p. 137 ] are qualities essentially different from the qualities required to obtain power.
The question of personnel is a tremendously important ‘one, as man is the beginning and the end of social life, and finally every idea, institution, and administrative office is represented by men. Since the beginning of democratic societies, the ideal was that the most capable man, regardless of rank, wealth and origin, should find his way to the top. The general ballot was supposed to be the right road leading to this goal.
If we examine the records of those people who came to power this way, and who had an influential voice in shaping public affairs during the past years, we might reasonably doubt whether the present method of obtaining nomination and election to legislative bodies and governments is sufficiently selective to guarantee the best possible leadership. There are too many cases in which it soon became apparent that those entrusted with the responsibility of formulating and directing our affairs were lacking in the elementary knowledge of the problems to be dealt with, and did not possess the basic qualities of leadership.
In every other field of human activity, a certain capacity for reasoning and a certain elementary knowledge of facts are requisite for any advancement. Among astronomers, there may be hundreds of different views relative to the construction of the universe. All these divergent views must be freely and thoroughly discussed by scientists in universities and academies. Only through such free discussion can the true and accurate theory be adopted, and the proper authorities be determined. But should anyone in such discussions [ p. 138 ] assert and persist in the thought that the earth is not a globe, but a flat plate surrounded by water, and that it is not revolving around the sun, but that the sun is revolving around the earth, he would not be allowed to teach in universities, he would not get academic awards, and he would certainly not be considered a scientific authority.
Nobody would feel that barring such an obviously unqualified person from a professorship in a university was against freedom of science and anti-democratic. It is simply an accepted fact that discussion, which must ever be kept free for the sake of scientific truth and progress, has gone beyond the point to which he sticks and which he teaches, and that nobody holding such views can be taken seriously.
There are thousands of problems concerning the constitution of the human body, and these problems must be freely discussed in all medical circles. Every opinion must be expressed and must be studied with the utmost care and attention. Only thus can the best minds in medical science come to the foreground and constructively help to fight disease. But if in such medical discussions someone would contend and stoutly defend his contention that there is no such ‘thing as blood circulation in the human body, nobody in any assembly of medical science would listen to him. He would quite naturally be looked upon as an ignoramus. And he would vainly insist upon being allowed to be a professor of medicine on the ground that freedom of speech and freedom of science give him the right to teach these views.
These principles of selection are universal in all fields of human endeavor, except in the political field.
Here, though the problems which have to be dealt with [ p. 139 ] are the most complicated, and vitally affect the very lives of hundreds of millions, we still listen to people who believe that notions like neutrality, isolation, non-intervention, etc., etc., could be the subject of serious public discussion. They are just as dead conceptions as the views about the globe before Copernicus and the theories about blood before Harvey.
We must correct our present system of selecting representatives and government, and must require that whoever we send to a legislative assembly should possess not only a colorful personality, influential friends and rhetorical talents, but also a certain minimum knowledge of public affairs and of democratic principles.
To correct and to limit in such a way our present system of free election would not only not infringe upon the democratic principle of free voting, but would give a far better opportunity to the people to exercise their democratic right of election by entrusting representation to such people who really do represent democratic ideas.
It cannot be the criterion of democracy that a man with anti-democratic ideas should have the possibility of getting elected. Only men with the right conception of the modern world and with the sufficiently deep-rooted democratic convictions can lead us to the next step: to the foundation of a democratic international life.
Skeptics will obviously ask who will be the judge, who will guarantee that such limitations of freedom of speech, of freedom of assembly, of freedom of the press will not be abused. And who will be the judge that the men to be [ p. 140 ] elected possess the required qualifications for democratic leadership. The answer is simple:
Abuses will naturally occur from time to time, as there is no conceivable organization of society perfect in an absolute sense.
In many cases the only possible way to cure a deadly disease is by applying therapeutic measures which, while overcoming the malady, more or less react on other organs of the body which are not affected by the disease. Nevertheless, this is the only acknowledged method of treatment and is not challenged by any authority. Nor does anyone challenge the urgent necessity of surgical operations in spite of the full knowledge of the risks they might involve.
We have come to the conclusion that the present interpretation of democratic principles, and certain democratic institutions as they function today, are a deadly danger to democracy itself, and have been the direct cause of the destruction of democracy in the majority of countries. Having made the proper diagnosis, we have to undertake the necessary drastic measures and reforms, even, if by saving the very existence of democracy, we carry certain unavoidable risks.
But there is no reason to fear that such abuses would be of any importance. Once the proper democratic legislation —national and international—is enacted, there is no justification at all to believe that independent courts will fail to handle situations properly and in a democratic sense.
Whether “wars” in general can ever be abolished is impossible to tell. Probably it will never be the case, But this type of wars—wars between nations separated from each [ p. 141 ] other by artificial boundaries—can be abolished as soon as certain parts of the sovereignty exercised today by these nations are transferred to a higher organ. Religious wars were stopped only when the nations began to exercise the sovereign rights independently of the churches.
Out of all these existing tendencies arises the revolutionary principle of giving partial sovereignty to nationalit on a non-geographical basis.
Territory as a basis for national sovereign states over which central governments rule was only possible for great nations with a compact and unified nationality. The rapid collapse of the r919 system proves the impossibility of organ izing smaller nations in independent states on a territorial basis where nationalities intermingle. The corrective of minority legislation proved to be a complete bankruptcy.
The part of the world in which a new form of union is a categoric necessity and must be attempted is that part of Europe which lies between Germany and Russia, the Baltic and the Mediterranean. In this part of Europe, whence most of the causes of wars emerge and where some twenty nations are living in such an interpenetrative form that no national frontier can possibly be drawn between them, the formation of states based on nationality is an absolute impossibility.
The only solution acceptable to all nationalities involved seemis to be the formation of independent national governments in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Belgrade and all the other capitals, governments which should not have power and authority over a certain limited territory, but over a certain nationality, independent of the territory in which [ p. 142 ] they are living. Naturally, the sovereign rights in financial, military and foreign affairs would have to be handled by a federal government selected by them. But in any cultural and national matter, a Rumanian, a Serb and a Hungarian living in the same village should be in a position to follow the Rumanian, Serb and Hungarian national governments.
An analogy to this solution can be found in the religious wars when countries with various religions fought wars against each other until a superior power made it possible for Catholics, Protestants, Mohammedans, Orthodox Greeks, Baptists, Jews, and all others to follow the rules of their own churches without being obliged to kill each other for that reason.
Another important part of the world where the formation of national sovereignties on a non-geographical basis might be the solution of centuries-old struggles is India.
The governments of the various conflicting nations which are fighting for prestige, power, national independence, equilibrium and many other illusions, seem to forget that, besides all this, men also want to eat. So, after a fabulous evolution of industrial production, more millions of people today suffer hunger and misery than ever before.
Nazism and Fascism are merely symptoms of a world crisis and the decadence of a certain system which has nothing any more to do with present conditions. If we want to continue with mass production and dividing this tiny world into a hundred water-tight compartments, if we want to go on being “independent,” “sovereign,” “neutral,” and what not, we shall have wars and wars and wars.
If we believe that “democracy” is the system we had in [ p. 143 ] the past and if we want to go on believing in the same obsolete conceptions, which were merely the expressions of the first attempt of a democratic order established on the basis of eighteenth-century realities, then such a democracy will be smashed like a rotten tree by a tempest.
Democracy is not and can never be a closed rigid system. This is its death. Any closed rigid system must lead to wars, revolutions and dictatorships. Democracy needs constant readjustment. Its institutions require ceaseless rejuvenation. Democracy, therefore, cannot be defined by any system of institutions, existing or to be created.
Democracy is an atmosphere, the only atmosphere in which modern man can live, prosper and progress.
‘The political organization which is required to solve the problems of war and peace, of freedom and slavery, is not a distant, remote aim, but an immediate necessity. We cannot waste much time. The foundation must be laid now, during this war.
In fact, the establishment of a democratic world order is nothing but the very beginning of the real work we have to do: the solution of the social problems, the problems of production, distribution and consumption, the problem of the general rise in the standard of living for the human Tace.
Only if we keep in mind these vast social and economic problems can we sce the political task before us in its real perspective; that might give us the courage to tackle it without delay and to solve it now.
If we cannot take the resolution to construct now the only possible political framework of our time, we shall have [ p. 144 ] no chance to solve any one of those problems which in fact are the real daily problems of every man and woman, and which should be the principal task of all the governments of our time.