Two arguments for sovereignty- and why the difference matters

Not getting into the details of this latest controversy with the global celebs tweeting etc.- for what’s it worth I don’t think it is a violation of any country’s sovereignty for a private citizen to comment on their internal affairs; organized campaigns to do so should be dealt with by a state similar to how the state deals with ANY propaganda- smartly with counter propaganda, exposes etc.

But there is a larger question which I think is important- *Why* does any nation need sovereignty?

Firstly, what is sovereignty? It is “self-rule”- but more sharply a nation is sovereign when it has the ability to establish (that is define and enforce) the law for itself.

Now, why do we need to be sovereign? After all, as long as the law is *just*, how does it matter whether someone else is ruling us, or we an establish law ourselves? Our lives will be the same, governed by the same laws anyway. So what’s the big deal? Shouldn’t the debate only be about whether a given law is just or not- why bother with the identity of who is formulating or influencing or enforcing the law?

Two arguments for sovereignty exist. The first, weaker argument, is the one from cynicism/ realism. It is that we cannot trust anyone else (outside of the nation) to have our interests at heart. And hence, we cannot allow them to establish law, because they will serve their own interests, not our own. So even if a given law established by them is just, we cannot handover the keys to them because who knows what they will use it for. So this is an argument based on well founded suspicion based on a realistic understanding of human nature. While I agree with it, it does not go far enough and misses a key insight.

There is a second argument — the argument from *experience*. And that is, — it is not just that others WON’T establish laws that suit us, it is that they CAN’T. That is EVEN IF there is a benevolent foreigner who is deeply committed to the well being of another nation-state, they are not capable of establishing the appropriate law, because they lack the experience of our culture, civilization and customs.

And this goes to what law is- it is to codify what is the common sense customary practice that society comes up with to regulate conduct- that is what is generally already held dear by custom. It is NOT something emancipated from context- and that applies universally across space and time. Law is contextual- it is for a given society, to regulate its specific conduct, in the specific time and place, and based on the specific values that society holds dear. Others CANNOT replicate that because our values, our norms, our institutions, our culture and civilisation are all alien to them; they are not privy to our experiences, and hence are in no position to establish law that is *appropriate and just FOR US*

That is — law is not “universal”, it is contextual- cultural and civilisational differences and the unique path of history is key to law.

Now, why is the second argument important? With the first argument we get to a sovereign state anyway, so is this just theoretical?

No. This conceptual grounding in the second argument is important as it affects many real world situations. If the ONLY thing that makes you seek sovereignty is the argument from cynicism, then you will BOTH be not alert to threats couched in very benign terms, and not alert to unjust law for your own context.

I see liberalism as particularly susceptible to this- as it is a universal and universalising ideology. There is actually no first principles argument for sovereignty in liberalism other than the first one, that too as a kind of realistic recognition that man is tribal. Since ALL law in liberalism has to flow from individual liberty as the axiom (and equality, fraternity if it is more left liberalism) in theory EVERY nation-state should have the same laws. However recgonising human tribalism, “liberal nationalists” as they call themselves, would say we can’t trust someone else to look after our interests so we need sovereignty, but the end state of our nation, like all nation-states should be to establish liberalism. In theory a liberal nationalists ideal world would have many nation-states with pretty much identical laws, different cultural practices in private life, but still more or less identical laws. That is the inescapable logical conclusion- because if you start with the same axioms, and use a process of reason, how can you end up with different conclusions?

Hence for a liberal, a law that doesn’t conform to liberal principles is a deviation, a heresy even. And then there is a susceptibility in working with foreigners who are established liberals. After all if your ONLY objection normally was you would be suspicious of the intent of foreigners, then if some foreigner’s liberal cred is well established what is wrong in getting their help to bring about the True Law? Then it inverts the burden of proof- you are a conspiracy theorist who has some global evil plot in mind if you object to foreign meddling- prove that there is a plot, else admit that this is perfectly ok. If foreign government Y is more liberal than evil nasty right wing government in your own country, trust their intent to influence your country- that influence is ok, in fact a necessary part of the education of our country to move towards the liberal ideal.

But no- that is NOT the sufficient argument for sovereignty (though even with this there is a mountain of empirical evidence about how nation-states use propaganda about human rights and other liberal principles to achieve cold blooded geopolitical objectives)- it is that they CANNOT- they are not us, and hence they don’t understand us. A foreigner understands us as an outsider, by mapping their experience of us onto familiar templates- templates that they have from their culture and their civilisation. The conclusions they come to are hence distorted, like looking at a funhouse mirror and thinking you are seeing an object correctly.

I don’t have to prove that a given foreigner is evil. I do however make the claim that ANY foreigner, is not privy to how we experience our culture and society. That’s not because they are inferior, it is because their experiences are not privy to us, and vice versa. This does not mean we should not have discourse with them, nor that we shouldn’t learn anything from them- we absolutely should. Neither does it mean they cannot comment. But intellectual humility and the diversity of cultures has to be understood. Pontificating about law by applying your norms is a form of colonisation- it is to say that you have the enlightened true faith, that others are following a deviant and barbaric falsehood, and hence you are doing them a favour by correcting them. It isn’t a coincidence that many liberals in India calling for foreign intervention use this language — “correction”, about how India is “no more a democracy”, “no more liberal”, “fascist and authoritarian” etc. All of this is with a lens of universal normative thinking, and to not see the world as peopled by different civilisations.

India is not a country that has to graduate to become like the west- that’s not an upgrade. The power asymmetry, history and even present colonising tendencies of the west are sufficient reasons of course. But even more so- we need to vigilant about sovereignty because we face people who think their ideas are universally and eternally valid and true- and that we just haven’t been exposed to the Truth, and need to learn it for our self improvement. Hence they will react with puzzlement when they see us pushing back. Not just them, those who believe in this universal ideology and are Indian citizens will also react with bafflement- why are these guys getting so testy, when what we are saying is so obviously true. Universal ideologies cannot fathom intellectual diversity and the visceral feeling for law to flow directly from our experience, that we, and only we, are privy to.