Part 11 (2/2)
But how, out of this mediocrity of the crowd, a mediocrity which, as Nietzsche says, is always increasing, by what process natural or artificial can a new and superior race be created? Nietzsche seems to be recalling the theory, very disrespectful and very devoid of filial piety, by which Renan sought to explain his own genius. ”A long line of obscure ancestors,” he says, ”has economised for me a store of intellectual energy,” and he jots down in his note book certain suggestions, a little immature but still emitting a ray of light. ”It is absurd,” he says, ”to imagine that this victory or survival of values (that is low values, values, that is, that seem to be mediocrity) can be antibiological: we must look for an explanation in the fact that they are probably of some vital importance to the maintenance of the type 'man' in the event of its being threatened by a preponderance of the feeble-minded and degenerate. Perhaps if things went otherwise, man would now be an extinct animal. The elevation of type is dangerous for the preservation of the species. Why? _Strong races are wasteful, we find ourselves here confronted with a problem of economy._”
We perceive, in this train of reasoning, some inkling of what Nietzsche is trying to formulate as his solution of the difficulty. What is needed must be a natural process, a _vis medicatrix naturae_. In the process of declining and falling, races practise a sort of thrift; they save and they economise. Then, if we may suppose that the quant.i.ty of energy of intellectual and moral power, _i.e._, of ”human values” at the disposal of the race is constant, the races that so act are creating in themselves a reserve which one day will irresistibly take shape in a chosen cla.s.s. They are creating in their own bosom an _elite_ which will one day emerge, they have conceived all unconsciously an aristocracy which will one day be born to be their ruler.
We always find in Nietzsche the theory of Schopenhauer, the theory of the great deceiver who leads the human race by the nose and who makes it do and, as if it liked it, that which it would never do if it knew where it was being led. It is very possible; still it remains that economy carried to an extreme, though it can lead to a reserve of force, may also lead, and perhaps much more surely, to a condition of anaemia; the annihilation of one set of competent people in order to prepare the way for races of competent people in the future, I do not know if this is a game inspired by the great deceiver, but it is a game which to me appears dangerous. We ought to be sure (and who is sure?) that the great deceiver does not abandon those who abandon themselves.
I have often said, without thinking of any metaphysical mythology, thinking indeed of the ambitious people whom we meet everywhere, and thinking only of giving them some good advice: ”The best way to get there is to come down.” Nothing could be more philosophical, Nietzsche would reply; it is even more true of peoples than of individuals: the best way for peoples to become one day great is to begin by growing smaller. I rather doubt it. There is no really solid reason to support the theory that feebleness cultivated with perseverance results in strength. Neither Greece nor Rome supply examples, nor did the democratic republic of Athens nor the democratic Caesarism of Rome ever succeed in giving birth to an aristocracy of competence by a prolonged economy of values.
--They did not have the time.--
Ah yes, there is always that to be said.
It would perhaps be better to try to put the brake on democracy than to encourage this process of degeneration on the chance of a favourable resurrection. At least this is the course which presents itself most naturally to our mind, and which seems most consonant with duty.
When I say put the brake on democracy, it must be understood that I mean that it should put the brake on itself, for nothing else can stop it, when once it has made up its mind. It must be persuaded or left alone, and even persuasion is a rash experiment, for it dislikes being persuaded of anything but of its own omnipotence. It must be persuaded or left alone, for every other method would be still more useless.
It must be reminded that forms of government perish from the abandonment and also from the exaggeration of the principle from which their merit is derived, though this is a very superannuated maxim; that they perish by an abandonment of their principle because that principle is the historical reason of their coming into existence, and they perish by carrying their principle to excess, because there is no such thing as a principle that is absolutely good and sufficient in itself for regulating the complexity of the social machine.
What do we understand by the principle of a government? It is not that which makes it be such and such a thing, but that ”which makes it act”
in a particular way, as Montesquieu has remarked; that is, ”the human pa.s.sions which supply the motive forces of life.” It is clear then that the pa.s.sion for sovereignty, for equality, for incompetence, is not sufficient to give to a government a life which is at once complete and strong.
It is necessary to give to competence its part, or rather it is necessary to give competence one part, for I do not wish to argue that there is any question of right involved, I only affirm that it is a social necessity. It is necessary that competence, technical, intellectual, moral competence should be a.s.signed its part to play, even though the sovereignty of the people should be limited and the principle of equality be somewhat abridged thereby.
A democratic element is essentially necessary to a people, an aristocratic element also is essentially necessary to a people.
A democratic element is essentially necessary to a people in order that the people should not feel itself to be a mere onlooker, but should realise that it is a part and an important part of the body social, and that the words ”You are the nation, defend it,” have a meaning.
Otherwise the argument of the anti-patriot demagogues would be just.
”What is the good of fighting for one set of masters against another set, since it will make no difference, only a change of masters?”
A democratic element is required in the government of a people, because it is very dangerous that the people should be an enigma. It is necessary to know what it thinks, what it feels, what it suffers, what it desires, what it fears, and what it hopes, and as this can only be learnt from the people itself, it is necessary that it should have a voice which can make itself heard.
This should be done in one way or another, either by a Chamber of its own which should be endowed with great authority, or by the presence in a single chamber of a considerable number of representatives of the people, or by plebiscites const.i.tutionally inst.i.tuted as necessary for the revision of the const.i.tution and for laws of universal interest, or by the liberty of the press and the liberty of a.s.sociation and public meeting. This would not perhaps be enough, but it would be almost enough. It is necessary that the people should be able to make known its wants, and to influence the decisions of the Government, in a word its voice should be heard and considered.
An aristocratic element is also necessary in a nation and in the government of a nation so that all that admits of precision shall not be smothered by that which is confused; so that what is exact shall not be obscured by what is vague, and so that its firm resolves shall not be shaken by vacillating and incoherent caprice.
Sometimes history itself makes an aristocracy--a fortunate circ.u.mstance for a nation! This forms a caste more or less exclusive, it has traditions, traditions more conservative of the laws than the laws themselves, and it embodies in itself all that there is of life, and energy and growth in the soul of a people. Sometimes history has failed to give us an aristocracy or that which history has made has disappeared. It is then that the people ought to draw one out of itself, it is then its duty to appropriate and preserve the high qualities to be found in men who have rendered service to the State or whose ancestors have rendered service to the State, who have special qualifications for each particular office and a moral efficiency for every form of public service.
These qualities const.i.tute the acquired apt.i.tude of an aristocracy for taking a part in the government; these qualities const.i.tute its adaptation to its social environment, and to its special function in our social machinery and organisation. One might say that it is by these qualities that _it enters into and becomes part of the organism of which it is the material_. As John Stuart Mill has justly remarked, there cannot be an expert, well-managed democracy if democracy will not allow the expert to do the work which he alone can do.
What is wanted then and will always be wanted, even under socialism where, as I pointed out, there will still be an aristocracy though a more numerous one, is a blending of democracy and aristocracy; and here, though he wrote a long time ago, we shall find Aristotle is always right for he studied in a scientific spirit some hundred and fifty different const.i.tutions.
He is an aristocrat, without concealment, as we have seen, but his final conclusions, whether he is speaking of Lacedaemon, which he did not like, or of Carthage, or in general terms, have always been in favour of mixed const.i.tutions as ever the best. ”There is,” he says, ”a manner of combining democracy and aristocracy--which consists in so arranging matters that both the distinguished citizens and the ma.s.ses have what they want. The right of every man to aspire to magisterial appointments is a democratic principle, but the admission of distinguished citizens only is an aristocratic principle.”
This blending of democracy and aristocracy makes a good const.i.tution, but the union must not be one of mere juxtaposition which would serve only to put hostile elements within striking distance. I said a ”blending” but the blending must be a real fusion. Our need is that in the management of public business aristocracy and democracy should be combined.
<script>