By The American Contemporary
Fundamentalism, as it pertains to politics, views the nature of a state’s survival as precarious. That is, the rule of law for every nation, established at the founding of each unique state using some form of agreement and/or documentation, is only held together by the collective agreement of those who live within and are governed by those regulations. When the collective inhabitance of a state abide by these rules, the state is able to survive. However, when the wants of the population deviate too greatly, or the enforcement of law changes or is modified by the ruling caste, the inevitable result is destabilization and, eventually, death of the state.
There are many historical accounts of such events. The Roman Republic is a classic example of dramatic alterations to foundational principals resulting in the destruction of a government. Of course it would be a great disservice to history if one were to attempt to consolidate the complex web events that caused the collapse of the Roman Republic in a few words. Yet even still, an undeniable contribution to its downfall was rampant corruption in the aristocracy including appointment to positions of power based on nepotism, the illegal consolidation of power and establishment of private armies, and the prolific theft of state moneys for bribery. It was written that strict adherence to Rome’s laws, coupled with their unique blending of all three forms of government (being monarchy, aristocracy, and republicanism), allowed Rome to succeed were no other society had. However, when the enforcement of law and the regulations by which the state was run were changed sufficiently, the agreed upon structure as the citizenry knew it become something new and unwelcoming, causing division and hostility and ultimately, contributed to the destruction of the republic and the establishment of the empire (note that this trend also follows Aristotle’s view of the cyclic nature of government).
Taken from another point of view, consider the rise and fall of Sparta. Sparta enjoyed several hundred years of relative peace, establishing a small but powerful nation guided by a duel-king structure, focused primarily on the maintenance of their borders rather than the expansion of their territories. When expansion occurred however, the structure of government was effectively altered with it, as the new obligations of stewardship along the Italian peninsula necessitated governmental alterations, and thus changed the foundation of the nation beyond the tolerance of the people.
To give a more modern example, we may look to the various insurrections, rebellions, and changes in state structure which resulted from the collapse of the USSR. Yugoslavia, as an example, broke up into several independent countries following the dissolution of the USSR. The exact cause of this may be traced back to religious and ethnic differences, economic collapse, and the weakening centralized power in the state as a result of the loss of Russia’s support. While these all are individual contributors, each of these events are symptomatic of the larger underlying concept: that the state altered its foundation from its original founding principles, and the regulations placed upon the people were no longer congruent with policies.
Yugoslavia was not a new concept for the Croatian, Slavic, and Serbian people, with intentions to form such a state dating back to the 1700s. The formal plan eventually materialized with several distinct and declared goals:
- Establish a federation system for all Slavs
- Install a hereditary king of the land
- Divide the land into 3 tribes based on the principal ethnic groups, with a national assembly united under the king
- Allow each tribe to teach and promote its own culture, traditions, and teachings
- Unite the Orthodox and Catholic churches on equal footing (not giving one preferential rights over the other)
The formal establishment of the state occurred after the dissolution of Austria-Hungry, and while the initial sentiment was positive and optimism reigned amongst the people, it did not take long for the nation to devolve into chaos. The king repealed and altered the foundational constitution in 1929, a mere 11 years after the country formed. This new policy forbade nationalism and attempted to limit separatist ideology. Seeking more centralization, the king abolished historical regions and established more internal boundaries and standardization. These changes caused considerable contention within the state’s legislature and amongst the people.
Following WWII, the constitution was again rewritten using the Soviet constitution as its base, and resulting in the establishment of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. While the new communist party focused on strong centralized government and promoting ethnic cooperation by making all ethnic groups equal, this ultimately backfired as larger groups resented that smaller, less powerful groups had equal voting and representation rights, despite their smaller relative size. Other groups believed the leadership to promote favoritism towards specific groups, further harming relations. Ultimately, the state dissolved into several smaller nations, not lasting even 100 years.
All of the above examples demonstrate different methods of the same issue. When a state is formed, there are specific expectations by the foundational peoples. This is logical, as a new state would only be inhabited by those who either A) have no choice in the matter (such as slaves, the indifferent, or those too impoverished to relocate), or B) have a desire to be a part of the new nation state. The foundation upon which the state rests creates a firm structure of regulations and obligations to the people and the state. However, when the foundation is disturbed, either by the people, the government, or some tertiary actor, the stability of the complete system is compromised. Faith and understanding becomes compromised, and often begins a chain reaction resulting in the destruction of a state.
Thus, we as fundamentalists must consider both the intentional policies set forth by the founders of a state as well as the agreed upon policies by which the state was expected to function. Certainly it is undeniable that states and their policies must evolve with time, however it is imperative that new policies do not betray the original foundation on which the state was built. For, if the fundamental structure is compromised, the only potential outcome is dissolution of the state in favor of a new one, or the rapid reestablishment of a state under a new foundational doctrine. Fundamentalism and those who seek to advance their understanding in it requires awareness of these principals.