Forms of Hierarchy

The traditional hierarchy in European societies during the „long 19th century“ was usually based upon genetic and/or matertial heritage. For example the elder born had more authority than the younger ones, the male more than female, the children of monarchs or capitalists more than subjetcs or proletarians etc.

Many dictatorships, espascially fascists or/and military dictatorships of the 20th century were based on the law of the strongest, which maintained the the traditional autorcratic and vertical hierarchy. The difference was, that heritage of powerfull positions was not guaranteed like in a monarchy. The genetic factor (like a son or cousin of a former head of state) was a factor to gain charisma, but in fascist and military dictatorships brute force are the actual source of legitimacy.

Modern fascism

Hierarchy in a vertical autocratic form and organicism through genetical-traditional based nationalism are in my opinion the two foundations of fascism. Neofascism in the 21st century is also linked towards welfare state, modern (i.e. hidden) racism, populism, conspiratory ideologies and antielitism (particulary estblished elites and academic elites). This ecclecticistic strategy develloped neofascism and made it more acceptable to a wide range of desperate people.

Polycratism in History

The senate was ultimatly the main center of political life during the roman republic. The roman republic could be seen in general as a patriarchal and gerontocratic aristocracy. The senators or also called „conscipt fathers“ were usually head of rather old noble houses. The senate mean in latin like „the elder’s council“, which presupposes that experienced „wise“ elder men should deliberate in this assembly. Inside the senate even if it founctions through consensus, only a few dozen senators could had enough influence to convince a mojority of them; the process of deliberation in the senate was also very hierarchally ordered. The youngest and les-experienced ones had the most difficulties to bring proposals and to convince their colleages.

During the middle age the first estate was composed of clerics. Priests could legitimise actions and ideas as the ones who „know the truth“ written inside the Holy Scriptures. Saint Thomas Aquinas argued that the pope should have the last word about the choice of a monarch and that descendance should not be enough for ligitimising successions, but also capabilities and moral dispositions – like the catholic and cardinal virtues – should be also considered by the bishop of Rome (i.e. the pope).

Nowadays the rule of populist or even normal government is put into question when it does not listen to experts or even when it listen too much to the experts. Experts can only say what the facts are or how it probably is as it is – and by the way they don’t always agree on everything. Ultimatly the descision makers in particular ministires should not only be adviced, bt should also have some expertise on the subject they are dealing with. Otherwise a minister could not well enough decide which expert’s opinions should be guidelines in politics.

(To be continued.)

Julien Sita, September, 14th 2022.