THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY. Steve Zolno
that call themselves democratic have brought the greatest benefit to the most people, and do our best to understand the nature of governments that are likely to create the greatest stability for those under their wing.
What we call history actually is a continuum of time that comes out of the past and moves through us on into the future. At some point our most ancient ancestors decided that they were separate entities with a conscious history and a place in their community. They no longer simply followed the instincts that flowed through them. They became aware of themselves and their actions. They began to believe that some actions were good and others were bad and shared these values among them. But perhaps most importantly, at some point they began to seek recognition from others as valid and worthwhile human beings.
Our ancestors had to struggle for food and shelter, but by joining forces to hunt and protect themselves their chances for survival improved. As our brains became larger over the course of countless generations we were better able to anticipate our needs and plan more effectively for the dangers we were to encounter.2 And as the size of our social structures increased, more extensive rules and rituals were required to guide our interactions with our communities and world.3
Biologists tell us that evolution did not take a direct path from the beginnings of life to the present. Along the developmental route to the world we know, the branches of many species ended, with the survivors those best able to adapt to changing environments. But the majority became evolutionary dead ends.4
In East Africa a fossil was found of a human-like skull of a group that biologists named Sandlooper. They had a huge cranium that indicates a brain larger than current humans – nearly all we know about a race that lived perhaps 100,000 years ago. Most likely that brain provided an advantage for many generations, but for unknown reasons this species, like most, died out.5 A possible lesson here is that even being a successful species for a while does not guarantee long-term survival. In the case of Sandlooper, a large brain may have been an advantage, but this was not enough to ensure indefinite continuation; it may have been a disadvantage in dealing with new environmental challenges.
In these pages we will refer to this quality as the “persistence of the past” – the continuation of characteristics, attitudes, or ideas that seemed successful for a time but no longer confer an advantage. Evolution and the march of time make outmoded habits, customs, and brains an impediment to continued functioning. Most evolutionary biologists would agree with Darwin that changes over time to every life form always have been, and continue to be, ongoing, with no final forms, including our own.6
But what can we know about whether the earliest human societies had elements of democracy, since there are no witnesses to prehistory? Scientists use a number of methods to shed light on our origins. They glimpse at what human life probably was like from its earliest times primarily by: (1) studying and interpreting bones, pottery, jewelry, and other objects at archeological sites dating back before human record keeping, (2) observing people who live in primitive societies in our own time, (3) examining the social patterns of animals, and (4) describing the behaviors of young children.
As more sites are found that provide evidence of early habitation, the likely dates of human origins continually get pushed back. New discoveries regularly challenge current models. In Europe, the earliest traces of human habitation (Homo erectus) go back about 700,000 years, based on sites in present-day Hungary and Italy. Homo erectus was followed by Homo sapiens (modern humans), who migrated into the Near East 90,000 years ago and into Europe about 40,000 years ago.7 The main migration paths out of Africa seem fairly well established, while the likely date of the earliest migration to the Americas continues to be moved earlier.8
The Pech Merle Cave in southwestern France, with art believed to be about 25,000 years old, presents an awe-inspiring spectacle to the visitor. After squeezing through a narrow entrance, a large opening appears. One is confronted with drawings of animals that clearly were a focal point in the lives of individuals long before the existence of written language. What appear to be bison and horse-like animals – some in color – convey a very different view of the world and way of life from our own. We can imagine a family or clan gathering in the cave by a fire for warmth and light and discussing the animals depicted there in the same way that a modern family gathers around a television. Did they use signs or verbal language? Did they relive the day’s hunt, use the pictures to evoke the spirits of animals they wanted to capture, or tell stories based on the art before them? Was their cave art used in a ritual to help them practice and rehearse the hunt ahead?9
At some point after the gathering – perhaps the next day – an expedition took place. Decisions had to be made about what or where or how to hunt and who would participate. Was there a strong individual who assumed leadership or were more “democratic” methods used – a consensus or vote – to make essential decisions that would affect the group’s survival? We can be fairly certain that once a strategy was determined, with or without the use of actual language as we know it, the hunting excursion was more likely to succeed if everyone was able to agree and work together using a common plan. And if the original plan failed, the ability to communicate and find an alternative strategy increased the possibility of success.
Of course we never will know with certainty if there was any type of democracy among our earliest ancestors. However, anthropologists have studied the myths of early people, as well as the decision making process of primitive societies from our own time, that provide a glimpse into what may have been the early decision making process. There tends to be greater democracy – group decision making or consensus – among smaller groups, with larger groups requiring greater specialization, particularly in choosing leaders.10 Large societies had a greater division of tasks – including hunters and gatherers, makers of baskets, pottery, clothing and jewelry, healers, rule makers and enforcers. Trade began as goods were exchanged between societies that could not find or produce what they wanted.11
People in primitive societies in Africa and South America still travel and hunt in tribes, but all societies have moral codes that help them supersede their individual aggressions.12 This makes it likely that rules for behavior were present in the earliest human societies to provide guidance to live together successfully. Being able to follow rules and rituals that govern encounters with each other and the outside world – at first oral, then written – would likely have increased their chances of survival. Rules enabled them to move beyond conflicts and work more effectively toward common goals. Rituals provided spiritual inspiration and practice in encounters with enemies – both human and animal. What remains uncertain is to what extent freedom and choice were considered important to early humans – including those who lived far before the dawn of civilization – or if these ideas are of more modern origin.13
An assumption of ethologists (scientists who study animal behavior) is that observing animals sheds light on the origins of human interaction. This is based on the belief that we share common ancestors. An established “pecking order” – with leaders and followers assuming a hierarchy of roles – can avoid conflict while increasing efficiency for activities done by the group.14 We know that primates often search for food in small groups, for example some chimps hunt together.15 Many animals also communicate to warn others of their species about potential danger. Thus it seems likely that the species from which we evolved were able to cooperate toward common goals – an ability essential to the advent of democracy.
Studies of young children provide insights into early human behavior because they have had relatively little indoctrination into the ways of society. We often portray childhood as a time of freedom and innocence in our discussions and literature. Yet children are not really free because they depend on those around them for what they need to survive.
We are born into a family and society that hold expectations for us about how to act and what to believe, and most of us learn to live up to those expectations as we mature.16 We imitate models that we see around us such as how to act as male or female members of society. We begin to identify with a particular race, nationality, religion, or economic group. We come to believe that those who belong to groups different from our own are separate from us by their nature,