THE "CIVIL" IN CIVILIZED:

Come on in: the Anglosphere is freedom's new home (Andrew Sullivan, February 2, 2003, The Sunday Times)

The Anglosphere is not a revived version of the "special relationship" between the US and the UK. Nor is it some racist contraption uniting "Anglo-Saxons" or even "English-speaking peoples". It is, rather, a notion of an expanding group of nations and countries that share basic principles: individualism, rule of law, honouring contracts and covenants, and the elevation of freedom to the first rank of political and cultural values.

One of the critical elements of an Anglospherist nation is a healthy and vibrant civil society; by which I mean voluntary associations, private schools and colleges, charities, sports clubs, churches and so on--the "little platoons" of liberty that Tocqueville so admired in England and America.

Why Anglosphere? Simply because these political values--by accident of history--originated in England and subsequently Britain. But these values need not be restricted to English-speaking countries. High on the list of countries eager to join are those in formerly communist eastern Europe who value freedom more dearly for having been denied it for so long.

Others include centre-right governments in Italy and Spain. But countries where civil society is weak--Latin America, Asia or (as yet) Russia--don't make the grade. Nor do those societies where personal freedom is close to non-existent — the Arab world. France and Germany are standouts against such a concept as well. Why? Because the state in each country is too powerful, scepticism about individual freedom and civil society deep, and economic rigidity is maintained at the expense of employment and growth.

That's why the coalition to disarm Saddam is a sign of a changing world. Terrorism threatens societies that value freedom more than those that don't. Citizens of free societies have more to lose from terror--more civil liberties, more personal freedom of movement and thought. [...]

National sovereignty is a freedom as well--one that free countries are reluctant to give up without some tangible gain. So this concept will never yield something like the EU, an institution that can only make sense to a Gallic or German mind that sees the chaotic liberty of a diverse Europe in need of false coherence and discipline.

But for these reasons the Anglosphere is also durable. It springs from the values people hold, not the concepts their leaders impose upon them. As we move slowly out of a post-cold war era, the coalition emerging against Saddam today may well mark the future of international relations. Here's hoping.

The greatest challenge facing the globalizing world may well be that in the absence of a healthy civil society freedom appears to be only an illusory or temporary phenomenon. Meanwhile, we're not really certain how to develop civil society from scratch, except that we're reasonably certain the creation and/or maintenance of civil society requires a reduction in or limit upon the scope and power of government. So, what is necessary is a people confident enough to make a leap of faith, to assume that private civil associations, neighbors, churches, etc., will fill the gaps as government recedes. Now, consider the reluctance of even a people as self-confident and affluent as Americans--who already enjoy a comparatively healthy civil society--to contemplate basic reforms to the welfare, retirement, education and medical systems, reforms that would reduce the influence of government by moving responsibilities back to individuals, their families, neighbors, and communities, and you get some sense of how much more difficult it will be to cultivate civil society in unhealthy societies.

This is why it seems possible, maybe even likely, that the long term future of the Islamic world--where mosque and family and community are still vital--may be brighter than that of places like Germany and France, where society has been allowed, or even encouraged, to atrophy in favor of the state. It may prove to be easier for Islam to accept that government and economics must be free of religious control than for the most decayed nations of the West to rebuild civil society. And it may well be an at least subliminal recognition that their societies are too far gone to be saved that is fueling the hatreds of the Old Europe.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 1, 2003 11:50 PM