Human Nature and Politics

Long before Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei claimed that the earth is indeed round, Persian scholars, such as Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi and Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni, even went on to study the rotation of our round planet. However, it was the story of Galileo, who was persecuted and then executed, that became a famous analogy for the ignorance of mankind. Whenever we try to point to the ignorance of past generations, his story is told, as Galileo defended his theory against the church until his death. With a quite arrogant stance, we today believe that we are much more enlightened and would not allow the truth to be undermined in such a way. We claim to have learned from the past. A more tragic example is the persecution of Jews in Germany in the 20th century, commonly treated in western literature as horrors whose recurrence must be prevented at all costs. The general approach to preventing the recurrence of genocides, denial of the truth and other atrocious and ignorant acts are to seek dialogue and talk about these issues so that we can learn from this that those acts are wrong. In this essay, I completely reject this approach, pointing to the nature of human beings that is irresponsive to dialogue but is rather to be guided by external material structures. In other words, as long as institutions, strict rules, laws, principles and the threat of violence do not force us to behave correctly, there is no atrocity that cannot exist.

The Human Nature

Man is inherently selfish – this is what Thomas Hobbes said. However, this statement needs are bit more refinement. What Hobbes did not differentiate was the behaviour of humans in different forms of groups. In a family, humans are not necessarily selfish but rather self-sacrificing. This is because the family ensures the survival of the bloodline in a direct way. Our instincts lead us to prioritise this aim over our individual survival. A family member who is not self-sacrificing within the context of the family is dysfunctional. In the context of strangers, however, Thomas Hobbes is right in saying that humans are selfish and competitive because there man is acting as a representative of his bloodline, virtually abstracting his individual existence in competition with other bloodlines over scarce resources, and ultimately survival. Knowing this is extremely important because the behaviour of humans will always adapt to retain maximum competitiveness. In the case of Galileo, the church, as a human collective with a heightened intra-group commitment towards a common set of values, competed with Galileo over a cognitive resource to retain authority over other cognitive aspects. Or in other words, the church feared that its authoritative claim over the worldly and spiritual truth would be impaired through the grave misconception of such an important and central topic, such as the form of our planet. Now, in the truest sense, this would not have threatened the physical survival of the church, but since the purpose of this organisational structure is cognitive and spiritual in nature, the threat to the survival of this purpose can also come in cognitive or spiritual form.

Accordingly, we will always react with heightened competitive behaviour, once we perceive that our physical or cognitive survival is in danger. Regardless of how often we talk about the story of the oh-so-brave Galileo who stood up against the church when the truth challenges the fundamental aim of preserving interhuman survival, we react with increased competitive behaviour. We cannot change that. Today, there are so many glaringly obvious wrongs in the world that we knowingly accept as truths simply because the actual truth would harm our socio-biological positions in society. Our drive to protect our biological, social and cognitive preservation is so strong that we will in any situation adapt to new rules and regulations that try to prevent us from wrongdoing. This is not to say that we are cruel by nature, but our motives force us to act accordingly. How can politics work in such a situation?

Goals and Structures

Only when we fully accept and internalise that the above is the objective and universal truth, we can start to form meaningful policy agendas. Luckily, there is already a state theorem that provides the basis for potential maximum policy efficiency and proper societal development. Devletism readjusts and fixes the purpose of our existence and, therefore, also that of the state. The current orientation of political systems pulls goals into our focus that, combined with our inherent nature, produce detrimental results. States in contemporary and many past political systems are based on the idea that more power and comfort are desirable. In an environment of competitive human behaviour, such an orientation inevitably leads to amplified conflicts as we already have an inherent inclination towards conflict. Once this conflict is set out to achieve individual material goals, material violence will also increase. But since the orientation is directed towards goals that are rather confined to the individual, cognitive and spiritual violence are also common means to achieve personal advantages in this competitive arena. Contemporary political systems are then busy with plugging holes after new atrocities have emerged or old ones recurred. Our nature then drives us to seek the next opportunity to gain a competitive edge over the next man for personal gain. Only after successfully exploiting newly discovered loopholes, contemporary systems can react. Accordingly, our political systems lack the proper definition of goals and the necessary structures to create a productive environment.

Regarding structures, contemporary political systems remain reactive to imminent human behaviour. They set out to create short-term stability but not durability. Again, this is grounded in the personal interests of ruling classes that are no less involved in the competitive arena of interhuman struggle for survival. As such, the policies and strategies are solely confined to the life cycles of those elites which are much shorter than the eternality of the objective truth. Even if the clerics, who eventually killed Galileo Galilei, were fully aware of the truth of his claims, their preference remained to protect their personal survival and the survival of the church by protecting the cognitive authority through the defence of a lie. But would it today be different, if we could clearly demonstrate and prove that the attacks on the skyscrapers in New York and on the defence ministry in Washington in 2001 were actually organised by the government of this very nation? Where is the difference between our situation today and the situation in the past? There is no difference. And if the structures do not change, we will inevitably experience more genocides in the future. New knowledge will be disregarded and fought, morality is going to be challenged and civilisations will fall into decline again. Unless…

Representative of the Objective Truth: Devletism

In the first instance, Devletism rejects the focal points of power and comfort as desirable policy goals but rather treats them as convenient additions to a much more meaningful political agenda. Focusing solely on the joint and continuous achievement of genuine knowledge, the number of goals is reduced to one, which makes statecraft more streamlined. Further, it eliminates the individuality of our contemporary policy goals, as Devletism clearly distinguishes between societies, which, in turn, are tied to the amalgamation of ethnically highly similar communities. Accordingly, the policy goals under Devletism are no longer to serve the personal interest of man but redirect every interest towards one common goal. As we cannot change human nature, the competition of interhuman conduct remains the same but is now directed towards a common focal point: genuine knowledge production. Such a situation creates another amplifying effect: in a constellation of harsh competition for survival, the creation of one universal goal alters the competitive nature into a race of contributing more to this one goal than the next man. While in a competitive arena in which everyone seeks to enrich oneself the element of bringing others down is an effective method since power and comfort are relational, the survival advantage in a system with an orientation of genuine knowledge production lies in the contribution towards this goal. Hence, competition here adds to the pace of societal advancement. Also, through the common goal, the division between intra- and inter-bloodline competition is reduced.

Finally, Devletism not only addresses the problem of goal displacement but also of structures. Rather than reacting to detrimental human behaviour in hindsight, the devletist system accounts for it beforehand. Not only is the education system structured in a way that aims to enable every citizen to embark on the path of fulfilment and personal development, virtually preventing externally oriented behaviour, but the judiciary is designed in a way that concentrates on defining strong and fixed normative borders of “right” and “wrong”, instead of adapting to the emotional dynamics of the society. With that, the reactionary hunt for loopholes is replaced by a judicial system that is much more qualitative and in tune with human nature. In other words, in a devletist system, it is not necessary that a crime needs to be committed first before the judiciary reacts to it and crafts legal responses. Education, economic and social policies are structured in a similar way. The aim is to achieve genuine knowledge production. Those that do not engage in this process, will not survive. Those who try to violently go against this process will be punished. Those who utilise our competitive nature to work for the good of the nation will win. Those who work to enrich themselves have already lost.