Logocracy - Chapter 16: Five Independent Powers

Proposing a new, five-fold division of powers

How to cram in style.

Chapter 15 proposes the addition of two more institutions to the well-known “tripartite system” which separates the executive, legislative, and judiciary powers of government. Given logocracy’s empirical, scientific focus and the 1990s’ post-communist privatization disasters, Lobaczewski saw the need for education and the management of “social goods” to be placed under the control of independent authorities, not ministries answering to whichever party or executive happens to be in power. Both institutions suffer too much when either too tightly controlled directly by the state, or left simply to their own devices. So his solution was to give them their own independent powers within the state, not beholden to the whims of existing leadership structures, with their inefficient management and propagandistic aims.

The justification of separation of powers is to add an element of independence and mutual control in order to avoid concentrations of power that lead to injustice, for example, arbitrary pressure from the executive on legal decisions. Lacking such balance and concentrating all power in one source “has always led to unfortunate results,” whereas separation of powers goes some way to ensuring the rule of law. However, it often “unduly prolongs the decision-making process.”

The negative features of the tripartite system are evident, for Lobaczewski, in the American system, where he sees an “overgrowth of disputes between the three centers,” caused by the personal ambitions of those involved and emphasis placed on trivial matters. His description of American intraelite competition and polarization is ever truer today than when he wrote these words probably more than twenty years ago:

Education: As Lobaczewski puts it, “A teacher who is and feels like a government official ceases to be a skillful educator.” As such, science and education suffer when “excessively subordinated” to the government, e.g. a ministry of education, where “short-term goals and political changes have too much influence” or education and curricula are subordinated to political ideology, as in communism. This causes educators and scientists to become political lackeys and ignore sound pedagogical principles, which includes psychological skills.

On the other hand, without an institution to give the general direction and specialized criteria to education and scientific research, resources are wasted and quality suffers. Science and education become slaves to politics and money, and requirements become lax, e.g., privileging the children of the rich and powerful and not those with the most potential. This is how Lobaczewski saw American education,

…where the lowering of the level of teaching and education, especially in high schools, hinders the development of higher learning. It also results in the constriction of the citizens’ worldview to their own area, which threatens the entire social and political life.

Again, the situation has only worsened.

A scientific-educational institution with its own independent council not at the mercy of politics provides a national character with shared standards and direction and makes it competitive internationally.

Social goods: With state control of goods and industry comes difficulty and failure: inefficiency, waste, poor management (often built on political affiliation or other non-merit-based forms of privilege). Post-communist privatization was a disaster, with factories and farms brought to ruin after being sold for next to nothing; even continued state control would have been better, if only the incompetent managers had been replaced.

Under a logocratic classification of property, by contrast, most “state-owned goods, minor facilities, and all farms” should be turned over to private hands, as Class III goods. “This would make it possible to develop efficient management of the goods which at present usually give the worst results.” The remaining state property, however, should also be taken out of its control, to be now classified as Class II goods and placed under an independent management system—a directorate of social goods—also with its own council. As a reminder, social goods includes such things as large industrial, communications, energy, and other enterprises (e.g. what are currently classified as public utilities and state-owned enterprises).

In a transitional situation, such as would have been the case in Poland, Lobaczewski thought the head of state should have a greater influence on each of these powers, allowing him to harmonize their operations, at least temporarily.

---

Chapter 15: Five Independent Powers

It is now 250 years since the publication of De l’esprit des lois (The Spirit of Laws) by C. L. de Secondat Count de Montesquieu in Geneva.¹ The year 1987 marked the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, in which Montesquieu’s theory of three independent powers found its most consistent application. This time perspective naturally leads us to reflect on the value and contemporary practice of the applications of this theory.

Montesquieu, a proponent of constitutional monarchy with a moderate predominance of the nobility, considered his contemporary British system to be the best in existence, and history has partly confirmed his convictions. He wanted above all to improve this system according to his knowledge as a model for others. He saw the need to protect citizens from injustice by the force of the powerful. Therefore his idea was to make the judiciary independent from arbitrary decisions of the king and from the pressure of the nobles. Later he became convinced of the need for a similar separation of legislative and executive powers. He developed the basis for mutual control of these powers.

According to Montesquieu, the king was to be the supreme executive, which in the republican version was introduced in America. This latter part of his doctrine has rather not stood the test of time. Therefore, the solution suggested in this work adopts a balanced and constitutionally controlled influence of the head of state on all independent powers.

The concept of three independent powers, under the leadership of the head of state and with the leading role of parliament, has shown its merits wherever it has been truly respected and implemented in a reasonable manner. Mutual control of these powers ensures legal order in the state, but sometimes unduly prolongs the decision-making process. The lack of this mutual control and the concentration of power in one center, e.g., in the executive power—as in fascism—or in parliament—as in Poland during the interwar period—has always led to unfortunate results.

In the USA, a country where Montesquieu’s doctrine was written into the constitution with a certain ideological pietism, the negative effects of this are also becoming apparent: the overgrowth of disputes between the three centers of power when ambitions are at play and issues of lesser importance are exaggerated. The press takes advantage of this by filling its pages. Social energy is wasted and the country loses its authority in the eyes of other nations. This has the character of permanent competition, mainly between the legislature and the president and his cabinet. It is also a consequence of the fact that in the U.S. the president is first and foremost the head of the executive power and as a result the country lacks the moderating and political culture-creating role of the head of state. Such defects should be avoided by constructing a better system than democracy.

Modernity, however, presents issues on which Montesquieu could not yet deliberate. Particularly in logocracy, the guiding role of science and education will demand a properly considered general solution. At the same time, the difficulties of managing the goods of public ownership have become an important issue of economic development in many countries. Their sale into private hands is sometimes a return to primitive capitalism. It seems, therefore, that the best solution would be the creation of powers with a similar status of independence, which would ensure the sufficiently stable and effective functioning of these two important spheres of social life.

Science, the school system, and the education of the young suffer both when they are excessively subordinated to the state authorities and when they lack a corresponding authority operating on a national scale. Such an authority, operating on a scientific basis and on the basis of international achievements, should organize the school system and establish criteria for its requirements.

When the educational and scientific system is subordinated to a government ministry, short-term goals and political changes have too much influence on the work of education, especially on educational activities. The filling of managerial positions with supporters of the current political direction, and ignoring important criteria which are and always will be reliable knowledge and pedagogical skills, lead to distortions in education and a decline in the level of teaching. As a rule, the state authority has a “mutton-fist” in matters that require psychological skills and pedagogical tact. A teacher who is and feels like a government official ceases to be a skillful educator.

On the other hand, the lack of recognized authority, which gives the general direction, organizes the process of upbringing and teaching, as well as the related scientific and research activities, and sets the criteria of requirements for particular types of schools, results in the excessive complexity of the school system, the lowering of the level of education, with the inevitable waste of resources and work. The subordination of education to local power factors and ad hoc financial criteria results in the liberalization of requirements, as well as privileges for sons and daughters of local influential persons, which impairs education and reflects negatively on social customs.

This first situation, although still on a tolerable scale, took place in Poland during the interwar period. In the totalitarian countries of Europe of that time it assumed the dimensions of pedagogical chauvinism, the effects of which are known to us all too well. This second condition can be observed today in the USA, where the lowering of the level of teaching and education, especially in high schools, hinders the development of higher learning. It also results in the constriction of the citizens’ worldview to their own area, which threatens the entire social and political life.

The saying of Jan Zamoyski, “such is the Republic, as is the education of its youth,” can be adopted by logocracy as one of its eternally true principles. Therefore, it will strive for well-considered and balanced solutions in this area to ensure the best possible development of science and education for the needs of man and country. Since both teaching and education work for the future, this requires a planned action based on anticipation of the directions of development and future social, technical, and economic relations, and on sound pedagogical knowledge.

These requirements can be met only by the supreme authority of science and education, which will be autonomous and will act on the basis of adequate knowledge and outside the shaky current of political tendencies. Thus, the form of an independent power, whose activity will be based on the opinion of its own council of specialists, seems to be the best solution. The reader will find a more detailed conception of the organization of such a power in Chapter 20 devoted to it.

Nowadays and in many countries, as a result of various historical and social circumstances, there has been an increase in the amount of goods, mainly workplaces, that have become state property. With this has come an increase in the number of difficulties and failures caused by the sluggishness of ministerial offices in managing these goods. Taxpayers or workers then have to cover the losses, especially great where the criteria of party affiliation or other privileges, rather than qualifications, determine the filling of managerial positions.

In countries where a state-capitalist economy was introduced by force and all major goods were taken into state ownership, the difficulties mentioned above occurred on a disproportionately large scale. For the most part, this was due to the fact that managerial positions were entrusted to faithful but mediocre persons, often burdened with certain psychological deviations. Nevertheless, many old factories were expanded or new ones erected at the expense of society’s standard of living and of bringing it to economic catastrophe. The technical and economic inefficiency of these factories remained as a permanent feature difficult to remedy despite the recovery of formal independence. Even if the status of state ownership and the existing organization of industry were preserved, this state of affairs could have been improved by replacing those in managerial positions. However, this route was not used. The doctrine promoted by semi-public, international capital organizations was relied upon, and factories and farms were brought to ruin, only to be sold off for next to nothing through so-called privatization. This is not an activity inspired by the national good. It is therefore necessary to look for a way to give the remaining goods their proper status for an efficient economy.

Some of the currently state-owned goods, minor facilities, and all farms would be moved permanently to Class III and as such would be taken over by individuals or legal entities. This would make it possible to develop efficient management of the goods which at present usually give the worst results. The main mass of the remaining state property, however, classified as Class II, would require the establishment of a management system, properly thought out in the light of the principles of logocracy, technically and economically efficient.

Such a management system could not be subject to the ministries concerned. It would be a social good enterprise subject to the same laws and would be similarly taxed as other enterprises. It would become a large concern with ample opportunities for growth. This would have to be ensured by an appropriate organization based on self-government, its own council, and worker participation in the management of workplaces. The supreme authority of such a concern would be called the “directorate of social goods.”

In view of these necessities and purposes, it will be most advisable that this essentially important economic and social function should be entrusted to a body independent of executive power, changing political currents, and various privileges. The status, therefore, of an independent power seems the most appropriate of the known legal forms. The reader will find a conception of the organization and operation of such a government, as well as of the organization of enterprises’ self-governing bodies and cooperation with them, in Chapter 21 on the government of social goods.

Thus, two new powers were added to Montesquieu’s former three independent powers to form the essential core of five powers for the autonomous management of the most important matters of social and economic life. These powers will be subject to laws enacted through legislative processes, but will retain a fundamental degree of autonomy in directing the activities of the areas under their authority. The political maturity and patriotism of their leaders will induce these powers to cooperate reasonably with the government, especially in cases of national emergency. The head of state will have the right, guaranteed by the constitution, to inspect the activities of each of these powers, and the right of advice and initiative.

Particularly in the Polish version of the logocratic system, the president will have a greater influence on the activities of each of these powers, as provided for in the constitutional law. This will allow the head of state to harmonize their actions and take the initiative for the good of the whole. The extent of this presidential power in relation to the independent powers will be outlined in the chapters devoted to the operation of each of them.

Such a state of affairs cannot, at least in theory, be regarded as the historical end of a certain process of independence of the powers that now have ministerial status. For example, matters of health and social welfare are of a similar nature, requiring prudent planning over time and with the participation of appropriate specialists, and in safe independence from current political currents. Therefore, it can be assumed that in the long run the role of the executive will be limited to matters with a clear political character, with matters of internal order, foreign policy, state finances, and defense at the forefront.

Note: This work is a project of QFG/Red Pill Press and is planned to be published in book form.

1. HK: First published in 1748. Here is a modern English edition.