Let’s Bring Back Second-Class Citizens
By Mujtaba
Yes, I have deliberately chosen a clickbaity title. However as much as I aim to allure via controversy, the essence of my thesis remains the same: there ought to be tiers within citizenry, wherein “Second-Class Citizens” possess less “power” than their “First-Class” counterparts.
-
And, of course, many of you will cry out:
“This is inegalitarian!”
“A flagrant violation of human rights!”
“How dare you relegate people to the bottom of a social ladder!”
“Society cannot survive without equality!”
-
Yet before you carelessly hurl the rehearsed soundbites of modernity, allow me the courtesy of presenting my case.
Look around you: problems proliferate, solutions are proposed, action is forgotten, and people are resigning to apathy - a terrible state of affairs indeed.
-
And yet Liberal Democracy has promised us that such a state of affairs would never occur – that a sensible and enlightened populace would wield its power for the betterment of society. However, the populace proper is neither sensible nor enlightened (this indictment extends to myself). As the fruits of our democratic system attest, our power has been ignorantly exercised not for the betterment of society, but for the betterment of certain personal phantasies detached from the real.
This is not to deny the historic triumphs of Liberal Democracy, but rather to observe that its once-ripe fruits have begun to rot. Its revolutionary vitality, born from the sublation of aristocratic and feudal society, has itself ossified into a new orthodoxy. Tis now the stagnant status quo that subjugates us all.
-
Many populists however, would argue that the onus of our political stagnation is not on the populace but on a particular class of elites.
The Leftists blame the wealthy capitalists who lobby legislatures to advance policies that go against public approval.
The New-Right focus on the Woke Establishment composed of detached University Educated moralists who would rather focus on the condition of the Black Hijabi Polycule Amputee over infrastructure issues.
And a certain segment of the New-Right look toward the Jewish population. (I have nothing more to say on this falsehood).
-
Besides the last perspective, the populist view is correct in many regards, and the essence of their proposals hold much weight. Yet the populist imagination habitually exaggerates the role of the mysterious “elite” in creating our present state of affairs. For whilst “the elite” hold power (by virtue of being the elite) Liberal Democracy has awarded an unimaginable amount of power to the populace proper.
Yet the populist may strike back, and retort that “the elite” have removed a great deal of the people’s power. But the populist is confused when considering how “the elite” have stripped the people’s power. There is indeed truth in understanding that the actions of “the elite” may be antithetical and antagonistic to the people, but this by no means confirms the proposition that “the elite have stripped away the people’s power”.
For each individual remains powerful in their ability to campaign, debate, protest and vote. This capacity is not ornamental nor vestigial, like the forgotten headphone jack on a backpack; it is genuine and functional. The powers conferred by Liberal Democracy are formidable, and many of the transformative reforms of modernity could scarcely have emerged under the decrepitly insulated hierarchies of pre-modernity.
The aristocracy of old neglected vast swathes of humanity - women, the poor, the queer, the disabled, the irreligious, and many others.
But your vote, your campaigns, and your voice changed all that. Because the power each citizen has under Liberal Democracy is truly powerful.
-
Yet herein lies the very problem of Liberal Democracy. You and I are far too powerful.
The grotesque image of our political affairs is merely a reflection of our collective soul. Our post-lapsarian ontology necessitates that we act as both sovereign and saboteur over this Earthly Kingdom we rule.
Flushed and decided, he assaults at once; Exploring hands encounter no defence; His vanity requires no response, And makes a welcome of indifference.
- T.S Elliot, The Wasteland
When that highly educated politician appears to speak like a fool on live television, it is not out of ignorance but fear - fear of uttering the wrong phrase before a pack of moral hounds eager to devour any misstep.
When that lawmaker - seasoned by years of study and service - proposes a tepid, uninspired policy, it is because a herd of uneducated and uninterested citizens would recoil at the sight of genuine reform. For a phantasy of change is but a phantasy.
When a party leader pledges sweeping transformation yet delivers only modest, incremental reforms, it is not deceit but necessity. Subtle, systemic change - though vital - is impossible to communicate to a populace that demands only what can be seen and felt within the confines of their own immediate reality.
-
If the world of Liberal Democracy sucks, it is because we have made it as such.
Like a child that is awarded a responsibility, we have carelessly misused our powers as trinkets of play, rather than as vital tools to aid thy neighbour and self. Thus, tis high time we remove some of those powers.
For citizenry is not a right; it is a privilege. It is a privilege to have certain powers in civil society. As human beings we are endowed certain God given rights, and it is the responsibility of each human being to respect these rights. For as Kant puts it,
“Any respect for a person is properly only respect for the law”
And to respect the law, is to act in accordance with God’s will.
-
Yet whilst the polity may strive to enshrine the various human rights, dominion over one’s neighbour is not among them. Your vote is not just determining the outcome of your life, but the lives of all your fellow citizens.
Moreover, the goal of the polity is not necessarily co-current with God’s will and thus with human rights. The goals of the polity are, and always have been, the success and flourishing of the polity – by whatever metric that may be.
Thus, our political power is nothing less than the power to determine the fate of the polity itself.
-
Now I implore you to take a dosage of humility.
No matter how bitter or distasteful, please swallow your medicine.
Now gaze into the mirror of your own conscience and ask yourself “Am I even suited to decide who should be deciding the course of action needed for the success and flourishing of the polity?”
The sweet bitterness of humility forces you to affirm the question, because no one is well-suited for the task of electing representatives let alone being one.1
-
But is politics over? Have we solved it? Is the answer that politics is unsolvable and that we should just give up?
No!2
The answer is that we must minimise how much we fuck up the world around us. For though we are fallen, we need not languish in the craters we have made upon impact.
-
And to minimise our tendency to fuck things up, we must recalibrate the distribution of power. Not all citizens should wield equal influence in democratic processes.
This distinction I draw is not between liberty and tyranny, but between liberal rights and democratic powers. Every citizen should enjoy equal freedom to speak, to assemble, and to advocate - but not all should command equal weight at the ballot.
Those better suited to steward society ought to possess proportionally greater influence in its governance.
For example:
The seasoned leader of a major trade union should possess greater electoral weight than the inexperienced nineteen-year-old recruit who demands higher wages without comprehending the repercussions of such a demand.
Likewise, an economics professor at a reputable university should have a more substantial voice in economic policy than that random bloke in the pub who doesn’t know how tariffs work.
And The Good Samaritan who lives in service to others should hold more sway than the habitual offender who has repeatedly violated the moral fabric of the community.
In light of this, it becomes clear that my argument is not for the resurrection of second-class citizens but for the creation of multiple strata of citizenry - a third, a fourth, a fifth, and beyond. These dynamic tiers of citizenry would evolve and be periodically reassessed in accordance with individual merit and civic contribution.
One may find myself and my basic argument detestable. Yet I assure you that I am neither evil nor authoritarian.3 For my thoughts are but the natural extension of what many people already think:
That everyone, by virtue of being a citizen, should have the right to vote. Yet those who are more educated, more accomplished, more experienced, and more morally upright should exercise proportionally greater influence.
To make such thoughts normative, we ought to conclude that each measurable attribute of civic worth - education, service, integrity, contribution - could be rationally assessed to determine one’s degree of electoral authority.
Such a hierarchy of political power is neither inherently nefarious nor detrimental to the common good. It is, rather, a more judicious method of allocating power. For whilst God has awarded us certain inalienable rights, equality of votes is not among them.
-
What I have said in this essay is neither ingenious nor novel. Discussion of this sort has been around since Socrates was annoying the citizens of Athens. But the story remains the same. We are not all equally deserving of power.
So let’s bring back second-class citizens!
And yes, I know bittersweet is a word
Yes
Although I am unsure as to the validity of the former