Bahá’í World/Volume 24/World Watch

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 24

Next→

[Page 223]

Ann Boyles looks at contemporary

concerns surrounding identity, values, and governance from the perspective of an evolving global society.

WORLD WATCH

I n April 1995, the New York T imes invited its readers to send

in suggestions for names characterizing the age in which we live. Common offerings were what one might expect: the Age of Anxiety, the Age of Uncertainty, the Age of Fragmentation, the Age of (Great and Failed) Expectations, the Age of Disillusion (and Dissolution), the Age of Tribalism, the Age of Fundamentalism, the Age of Deconstruction, the Age of Greed, and approximately twenty variations on the Millennial 0r Messianic Age. Editors reported that the word “global” was very common in entries, as were the prefixes “dis,” “re,” “post,” “eyber,” and “fin de.” The Transnational Era and the Age of Kakistocracy (government by the worst people) were other names reflecting readers’ preoccupations. On a more scholarly level, eminent historian Erie Hobsbawm titled his history of the twentieth century, published in 1995, Age ofExtremes. The book’s first major section, covering the years 1914 to 1945, is “The Age of Catastrophe,” while the final section, covering the last two decades, is “The Landslide.”

1. International Herald T ribune, 3 April 1995.

223

[Page 224]TH_E BAHM WORLD

Such descriptions indicate the deep scepticism and pessimism with which our age is generally regarded. They reflect, too, upon the issue of identity: how we see ourselves as individual citizens and as a society. As Hobsbawm puts it, “Since the middle of the century. . .the branch of [the 01d civilization has begun] to crack and break. .. The old maps and charts which guided human beings, singly and collectively, through 1ife no longer represent the landscape through which we move, the sea on which we sai1.. .. We do not know where our journey is taking us, or even ought to take us.”2

Hobsbawm, as an historian rather than a futurist, does not offer many specific suggestions for the direction of humanity’s journey at either the individual or the collective level, but he does advance the idea that some sort of political organization beyond national boundaries will be necessary to deal effectively with a world in which global economic integration is taking place. At the same time, he recognizes that strong forces are at work against such integration. Benj amin R. Barber also treats this subj eet in his 1995 volume Jihad Vs. McWorld, Characterizing the struggle as one between an emerging globalism characterized by uniformity (“McW0rld,” or rampant, unregulated Western consumerism) and its opponents (“Jihad,” or “violent and do gmatic partieularism”).

A chief characteristic of the individual living in McWorld is encapsulated in the following passage from Charles Duming’s How Much IS Enough: The Consumer Society and the F uture of Earth, a report for the WorldWatch Institute. Burning makes the observation that “the words ‘consumer’ and ‘person’ have become Virtual synonyms” and that such identification has serious implications for individuals and their society. He continues, “The world economy is currently organized to furnish 1.1 billion people with a consumer life—style long on things but short on time.” Such an economy, he points out, is not concerned with matters of social justice, with issues of unemployment or of poverty.3

2. Eric Hobsbawm, Age ofExtremes: The Short T wentieth Century 19141991 (London: Abacus Books, Little, Brown and Co., 1995), pp. 16—17.

3. Charles Burning, How Much IS Enough: The Consumer Society and the Future ofEarth (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992), pp. 21—22; cited in Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad Vs. MC World (New York: Times Books, Random House, 1995), p. 223.

224

[Page 225]WORLD‘QVATCH

The View of the individual primarily as a consumer is commonplace today in many parts of the world. Advertising urges us to become associated with a particular cigarette, a brand of perfume, a line of Clothing, a car, or other such items. Now we can go to almost any part of the planet and consume the same kinds of fast foods found originally in America, or stay in the same hotel chains, or partake of the same soft drink, or watch many of the same television programs or movies or listen to the same music. In fact, at least on a superficial level, it seems as though one of the chief characteristics of the “global Village” in which we are reputed to live is our common consumerism. Certainly this is one of Barber’s central points.

While the life of consumerism depicted in MeWorld is less than soul-satisfying, the forces that, in Barber’s View, oppose that life are no more comforting. Narrow—minded nationalistic Or ethnic interests blind their adherents to any conception of life beyond their own particular View of how it should be lived. Barber refers to Jihad’s “recidivist tribalisms” and the “microwars” it promotes as “noisier and more obviously nihilistic than [the forces of] McWorld.” He sees them as creating instability in the short term, but in the long run, Barber predicts that the forces of McWorld will prove stronger: “MeWorld’s homogenization is likely to establish a macropeace that favors the triumph of commerce and its markets and to give those who control information, communication, and entertainment ultimate (if inadvertent) control over human destiny.” He concludes, “Unless we can offer an alternative to the struggle between J ihad and McWorld, the epoch on whose threshold we stand—postcommunist, postindustrial, postnational, yet sectarian, fearful, and bigoted—is likely also to be terminally postdemooratie.”4

Critics have attacked Barber for his sweeping generalizations. In The New Republic, for example, F areed Zakaria criticized Barber for a diatribe against the effects of what he called “unchecked participation by the masses,”5 pointing out that the increased

4. Barber, Jihad Vs. McWoer, p. 20. 5. See “Paris Is Burning” by Fareed Zakaria in T he New Republic, 22 Januaiy 1996,pp.27—30.

225

[Page 226]TH_E BAHM WORLD

prosperity at the root of the struggle depicted by Barber is an important transformation in our society:

The rise of a mass consumption society produces political, economic and cultural side effects that are troubling. But surely the criticism of this world, and of the liberal capitalism Which created it, must first recognize its accomplishments. The political and economic changes that have created McWorld are, on the Whole, admirable ones. Giving people the ability to live longer, to move Where they want, own a house, to enjoy such pleasures as vacations and restaurants and shopping is good, even noble.6

The point is no doubt well taken, but one must also consider this startling statistic: The gulf separating the rich and the poor around the world is Widening, according to the United Nations Development Program, Which reported in July 1996 that 1.6 billion people in 89 countries are poorer now than they were ten years ago. Further, the world’s 358 billionaires have more assets than the combined incomes of countries housing 45 percent of the world’s population. If such is the result of the kind of globalization described by Barber, it is worth questioning its value. Is consumerism or an excessive preoccupation With material concerns a good foundation, a conscionable basis, for any kind of global society?

Consideration of such inequities has informed recent discussions concerning the definitions and characteristics of government that are appropriate to this evolving world. Commentators have engaged in strenuous debates concerning various systems. Yet most agree that democracy—in a form giving less emphasis on consumerism and more on the responsibilities inherent in citizenship——is the answer. Barber refers to this shift as taking people “from elementary animal being (the thinness of economics) to cooperative human living (the robustness of strong democracy)”7 He asserts that

6. Zakaria, “Paris Is Burning,” p. 30. 7. Barber, Jihad VS. McWorld, p. 291.

226

[Page 227]WORLD WATCH

Strong democracy needs citizens; citizens need civil society; civil society requires a form of association not bound by identity politics; that form of association is democracy. Or: global democracy needs eonfederalism, a noncompulsory form of association rooted in friendship and mutual interests; confederalism depends on member states that are well rooted in civil society, and on citizens for Whom the other is not synonymous With the enemy; civil society and citizenship are products of a democratic way of life.8

These are noble sentiments, but as Barber himself notes, civil society and citizenship are not necessarily products of a democratic way of 1ife-—or at least of the democratic way of life as it is lived in the West at present. Czech President Vaclav Havel, writing of the widely perceived shortcomings of Western—style culture and its current values, shares this View:

The main source of obj ections would seem to be What many cultural societies see as the inevitable product or byproduct of these values: moral relativism, materialism, the denial of any kind of spirituality, a proud disdain for everything suprapersonal, a profound crisis of authority and the resulting general decay, a frenzied consumerism, a lack of solidarity, the selfish cult of material success, the absence of faith in a higher order of things or simply in eternity, and expansionist mentality that holds in contempt everything that in any way resists the dreary standardization and rationalism of technical civilizationg

These, then, are the “values” Widely associated with democracy, rather than those of civic duty, responsible citizenship, and so on. Havel has touched upon a point to Which Western commentators have recently become very sensitive. In the West, the common conception of values has been that they are something that should be relegated to the private sphere, With no place in the realm of discourse about our collective social life. Stephen L. Carter’s 1993 volume, The Culture ofDisbelief: How American

8. Barber, Jihad Vs. McWorld, p. 291. 9. Vaclav Have], “The Spiritual Roots of Democracy,” in Lapis: The Inner Meaning ofContemporary Life (Summer 1995), p. 29.

227

[Page 228]TH_E Bahá’í WORLD

Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion, discusses the implications of such a Viewpoint, covering topics as diverse as the issue of prayer in public schools and the abortion debate. Carter’s book has been seminal in the discussion about the role of moral values in the public realm, and a growing number of thoughtful people are now calling for a resuscitation of values in What they see as our morally impoverished society. The growth of political movements such as the communitarians is also a reaction against the excessive emphasis in Western democracies on the rights rather than the responsibilities of Citizens. One recent volume, Democracy ’5' Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, by Michael J . Sandel, has provoked much discussion because of its treatment of this theme. Sandel writes:

The global media and markets that shape our lives beckon us to a world beyond boundaries and belonging. But the civic resources we need to master these forces, or at least to contend With them, are still to be found in the places and stories, memories and meanings, incidents and identities, that situate us in the world and give our lives their moral particularity.

The public philosophy by Which we live bids us to bracket these attachments, to set them aside for political purposes, to conduct our political debates without reference to them. But a procedural republic that banishes moral and religious argument from political discourse makes for an impoverished civic life. It also fails to answer the aspiration for self—government; its image of citizens as free and independent selves, unencumbered by moral or civic ties they have not chosen, cannot sustain the public spirit that equips us for self—rule.10

Sandel’s call for recognition that moral and religious issues do have a place in public discourse is well argued, but he does not resolve important questions such as how these issues can be satisfactorily addressed in a pluralistic society. How, for example, can a society find common ground When values may be Widely different among the groups that make it up? How does the concept of “public spirit” translate from one culture to another?

Thus, While Sandel and others are clear about the need for

10. Michael J. Sandel, Democracy ’3 Discontent: America in Search ofa Public Philosophy (Cambridge: Haward University Press, 1996), pp. 349—50.

228

[Page 229]WORLD WATCH

moral content in political discourse, they are less clear about the means of introducing and regulating it in a society where different values and faiths flourish. Sandel has been chided about just this point. In the Times Literary Supplement review of Sandel’s book, Michael Rosen comments:

Sandel tells us that the republican favors those qualities of character that “promote citizenship”. What precisely those qualities are, and to What lengths the State is entitled to go in requiring that individuals show them, he does not make entirely clear, but he does say explicitly that his Vision of republican politics is not one of uniformity. While deploring liberalism for the supposedly debilitating consequences of neutrality, Sandel claims that republicanism itself embodies a “higher pluralism.” But how, the more mundane of us Will ask, is such a pluralism supposed to work in practice?11

While Sandel’s and the communitarians’ call for the reintroduction of values into the Climate of governance is welcome and useful, the basic assumption that a renewed and morally strengthened Western—style democracy, With its unexamined embrace of adversarial governance, is the only model for enlightened government is open to debate.

Havel, for example, cautions against the View of democracy as a “closed” system, pointing out

the limited ability of today’s democratic world to step beyond its own shadow, or rather the limits of its own present spiritual and intellectual condition and direction, and thus its limited ability to address humanity in a genuinely universal way. As a consequence, democracy is seen less and less as an open system, Which is best able to respond to people’s basic needs, that is, as a set of possibilities that continually must be sought, redefined and brought into being. Instead, democracy is seen as something given, finished, and complete as is, something that can be exported like cars or television sets, something that the more enlightened purchase and the less enlightened do not.12

11.Michae1 Rosen, “Against the Unencumbered Self,” in the T imes Literary Supplement, 18 October 1996, p. 14. 12. Havel, “Spin"tual Roots of Democracy,” p. 29.

229

[Page 230]TH_E BAHA’T WORLD

In such a context, democracy becomes just another product in a consumer societymnot an evolving system capable of great change.

Sandel himself seems uncertain as to the global application of reversing “the loss of mastery and the erosion of community that lie at the heart of democracy’s discontent”: “The difficulty,” he says, “actually involves two related challenges. One is to devise political institutions capable of governing the global economy. The other is to cultivate the civic identities necessary to sustain those institutions, to supply them with the mora1 authority the? require. It is not obvious that both these challenges can be met.”

Gertrude Himmelfarb frames the basic difficulty in these words: “If we are to revitalize civil society, must we not also re—moralize civil society, which is a far more difficu1ttask?”14 And Have1 takes the point even further when he affirms the need for the spiritual within the democratic system and cautions against placing too much faith in the mere machinery of the system:

The separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, the universal right to vote, the rule of law, freedom of expression, the inviolability of private ownership and all the other aspects of democracy as a system that ought to be the least unjust and the least capable of Violence—these are merely technical instruments that enable man to live in dignity, freedom, and responsibility. But in and of themse1ves, they cannot guarantee human dignity, freedom and responsibility. The source of these basic human potentials lies elsewhere: in man’s relationship to that which transcends him.15

Yet Himmelfarb and Havel stop short of speaking directly about religion in this process. Similarly, eommunitarian leader Amitai Etzioni, while arguing in The Spirit of Community for the promotion of individuals’ responsibilities towards the nurturance of community, declines to discuss the role of religion in such an

13. Michael J. Sandel, “America’s Search for a New Public Philosophy,” in The Atlantic Monthly (March 1996), p.72.

14. Gertrude Himmelfarb, “The unravelled fabric—and how to knit it up: Mixed motives among the new communitarians,” in the T imes Literary Supplement, 17 May 1996, p. 13.

15. Havel, “Spiritual Roots of Democracy,” p. 30.

230

[Page 231]WORLD WATCH

endeavor. Daniel A. Bell calls this “a glaring omission in a book that aims for nothing short of a new moral crusade in What is perhaps the most religious country in the world [America].”16 “Re—moralizing,” in Himmelfarb’s words, or reinforcing “man’s relationship to that which transcends him,” in Havel’s, is properly the task of religion, but there is a general reluctance on the part of commentators, even Stephen Carter, to allow religions to take a role in the assertion of values in the public sphere. Carter wants them to maintain their independence, their status as independent critics of the political process or moral watchdogs. He writes,

...if the religions are able to impose their own meanings, there is no longer any distinction, and, thus, no longer important work for the triumphant religions as autonomous agencies to do. This abandonment of the role of external moral critic and alternative source of values and meaning will make sense when the Second Coming is at hand, but not before. Until that time, it is Vital that the religions struggle to maintain the tension between the meanings and understanding propounded by the state and the very different set of meanings and understandin/gs that the contemplation Of the ultimate frequently suggests.1

Certainly, introducing values into the public sphere in societies that are multicultural and multifaith seems like an impossible undertaking, which would mean a dramatic shift away from the secular underpinnings of modern Western societies; it would mean either giving precedence to one set of religious values over the others or searching for the root values inherent in all faiths. The task of legislating morality was easier in the past, when societies were more homogenous. Nationalistio or ethnic or tribal movements that promote closed societies may be, in part, an attempt to return to such times, when identity was more readily defined and standards of appropriate behavior were more easily regulated.

Yet, while the likelihood of finding common ground—or even of generating the will to do so—may seem remote, another

16. Daniel A. Bell, “Together Again?”, review of The Spirit of Community by Amitai Etzioni, in the T imes Literary Supplement, 25 November 1994, p. 6. 17. Carter, Culture ofDiSbelz'ef, p. 273.

231

[Page 232]THE BAHM WORLD

commentator has observed that it is impossible for us to retreat to the world of the past. Patrick Glynn, writing in the journal New Perspectives Quarterly, says,

...we are at an important transition point in Western culture, moving out of the great modern era, with its deeply secular premises, into a new age that will not only be “postmodern,” but also, in an important sense, “postsecular.” The great dividing-line between church and state, between revelation and reason, is...being fundamentally renegotiated. And this is occurring not just in popular culture or politics, but at the very cutting-edge of human inquiry. Indeed, some of the most impressive signs of change—Of the gradual emergence of a “new paradigm” opening the way to a more explicitly spiritual View Of human life and even to a more universal acceptance of the existence of God—can be found in the most advanced Of the physical sciences, such as quantum mechanics and cosmology. This is not a backward—looking rej ection of modernity, but rather building upon Inodeinity’s achievements.

Glynn’s assessment, that humanity must move forward to embrace an emerging paradigm of existence that incorporates spirituality in a profound and aH-pervasive way, accords with the View advanced in the writings of the Bahá’í Faith. At the foundation of the spiritual teachings given by Baha’u’llah is the assertion that humanity has reached a stage of maturity which demands both fresh understanding of the nature of the individual and a new pattern of community life. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the son of Baha’u’llah and the Center of the Covenant He established with His followers, has elaborated on this theme of the maturing of humanity:

A11 created things have their degree or stage of maturity. The period of maturity in the life of a tree is the time of its fruit—bearing... The animal attains a stage of full growth and completeness, and in the human kingdom man reaches his maturity when the light of his intelligence attains its greatest power and development... Similarly there are periods and stages in the collective life of humanity. At one time it was passing through its stage of childhood, at another its period

18. Patrick Glynn, “Prelude to a Post-Seeular Society,” in New Perspectives Quarterly (Spring 1995), p. 17.

232

[Page 233]WORLD WATCH

Of youth, but now it has entered its long-predicted phase of maturity, the evidences of which are everywhere apparent... That which was applicable to human needs during the early history of the race can neither meet nor satisfy the demands of this day, this period of newness and consummation. Humanity has emerged from its former state of limitation and preliminary training. Man must now become imbued with new Virtues and powers, new moral standards, new capacities. New bounties, perfect bestcwals, are awaiting and already descending upon him The gifts and blessings of the period of youth, although timely and sufficient during the adolescence of mankind, are now incapable of meeting the requirements of its maturity

Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, also addressed this theme in a message to the Bahá’ís in the West in 1936:

The long ages of infancy and childhood, through which the human race had to pass, have receded into the background. Humanity is now experiencing the commotions invariably associated with the most turbulent stage of its evolution, the stage of adolescence, when the impetuosity of youth and its vehemence reach their climax, and must gradually be superseded by the calmness, the wisdom, and the maturity that characterize the stage of manhood. Then will the human race reach that stature of ripeness which will enable it to acquire all the powers and cagacities upon which its ultimate development must depend

The discussion of the need for spirituality to play a more central role in public as well as private life can be seen as a move towards that maturity to which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi allude. The maturing process of humanity as a collective entity also presupposes a similar process at the level of the individual. Far from conceiving of people as consumers, Baha’u’llah has described human beings as “the noblest and most perfect of all created things.”21 Our nature, the Bahá’í writings assert, is essentially

19. Cited in Shcghi Effendi, T he World Order ofBahci ’11 716%: Selected Letters (\Nilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1991), pp. 164—65.

20.1bid., p. 202.

21. Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings ofBahd ’u 715% (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1983),p. 179.

233

[Page 234]THB— BAHA’l WORLD

spiritual, and in this age of the maturation of the human race, we are responsible for developing the noble qualities latent Within us. “Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value,” Baha’u’llah states; “Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom,”22 and further, He says, “The potentialities inherent in the station of man, the full measure of his destiny on earth, the innate excellence of his reality, must all be manifested” in this age of the maturation of humanity.23 In the same vein, the Universal House of Justice states,

...the Writings of the [Bahá’í] Faith not only acknowledge that each individual has a God-given identity, but they also set out the means by Which this identity can achieve its highest development and fulfillment. Baha’u’llah attests that through the Teachings of the Manifestation of God “every man Will advance and develop until he attaineth the station at Which he can manifest all the potential forces With Which his inmost true self hath been endowed.”24

From the Bahá’í perspective, there exists a deep and inseparable connection between the practical and spiritual dimensions of human existence. In this paradigm, every human being has unique capacities Which he or she has the responsibility to develop, a task best accomplished by following the teachings given by God through His Manifestations-—in this age, Baha’u’llah, Who revealed laws and principles and established an administrative order for His followers to enable them to transform both themselves and the society in Which they live. In accordance With the process of maturation, the Bahá’í Faith teaches that the individual must exercise autonomy in deciding Whether or not to avail himself or herself of these spiritual guidelines for life. There must be 110 compulsion in matters of faith; one must be entirely free to investigate truth for oneself.

22. Baha’u’llah, Gleaningsfrom the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 260.

23.1bid., p. 340.

24. Universal House of Justice, letter to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, ll September 1995.

234

[Page 235]WORLD WATCH

It is the transformational force of the teachings of Baha’u’llah that motivates members of the Bahá’í community around the world. As each member of society “mines” the “gems of inestimable value” inherent in his or her soul and thus develops his or her capacities, so society is transformed, and we see evidence of “an ever—advancing civilization.” Service to humankind thus becomes the purpose of both individual life and all social arrangements. “Do not busy yourselves in your own concerns,” Baha’u’llah writes, “let your thoughts be fixed upon that Which will rehabilitate the fortunes of mankind and sanctify the hearts and souls of men.”25 And further, “The progress of the world, the development of nations, the tranquillity of peoples, and the peace of all Who dwell on earth are among the principles and ordinances of God.”26

The divinely ordained order established by Baha’u’llah is concerned intimately With the development of the individual soul—a concern far beyond the scope of calls for “good citizenship”though through developing spiritual qualities Bahá’ís become good citizens, too. As ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has written,

And the honor and distinction of the individual consist in this, that he among all the world’s multitudes should become a source of social good. Is any larger bounty conceivable than this, that an individual, looking Within himself, should find that by the confirming grace of God he has become the cause of peace and well—being, of happiness and advantage to his fellow men? No, by the one true God, there is no greater bliss, no more complete delight.27

Thus, interwoven With the Bahá’í teachings about the nature of the individual is a model of collective life. “The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens,” Baha’u’llah says. This embryonic world civilization asserts the earth as one homeland for the entire human family, whose Founder claimed as His chief

25. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings ofBahd ’u’lláh, pp. 93—94.

26. Baha’u’llah, Tablets ofBahd ’u 710% Revealed after the Kitdb—i—Aqdas (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Tiust, 1995), pp. 129—30.

27. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Secret ofDivz'ne Civilization (W ilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1994), pp. 2—3.

235

[Page 236]T1113. BAHM WORLD

desire “the good of the world and the happiness of the nations.”28

The analogy of society to the family is found throughout the Bahá’í writings. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has said, for example,

Compare the nations of the world to the members of a family. A family is a nation in miniature. Simply enlarge the circle of the household, and you have the nation. Enlarge the circle of nations, and you have all humanity. The conditions surrounding the family surround the nation. The happenings in the family are the happenings in the life of the nation. Would it add to the progress and advancement of a family if dissensions should arise among its members, all fighting, pillaging each other, jealous and revengeful of injury, seeking selfish advantage? Nay, this would be the cause of the effaoement of progress and advancement. So it is in the great family of nations, for nations are but an aggregate of families Therefore as strife and dissension destroy a family and prevent its £rogress, so nations are destroyed and advancement hindered.

Further, speaking of the relationship between the rights of the individual in the family and the group, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has said,

The integrity of the family bond must be constantly considered, and the rights of the individual members must not be transgressed... All these rights and prerogatives must be conserved, yet the unity of the family must be sustained The injury of one shall be considered the injury of all; the comfort of each the comfort of all; the honor of one, the honor of 2111.30

This balance of individual and collective rights is elaborated further by the Universal House of Justice, Which quotes ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statement that “the moderate freedom Which guarantees the welfare of the world of mankind and maintains and preserves the universal relationships is found in its fullest power and extension in the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh,” and then continues to discuss how this is enacted in the Bahá’í administrative order:

28. Words uttered by Bahá’u’lláh to Cambridge University orientalist Edward Granville Browne during his interview in the Holy Land, spring 1890.

29. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1982), p. 157.

30. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 168.

236

[Page 237]WORLD WATCH

Within this framework of freedom a pattern is set for institutional and individual behavior Which depends for its efficacy not so much on the force of law, Which admittedly must be respected, as on the recognition of a mutuality of benefits, and on the spirit of cooperation maintained by the Willingness, the courage, the sense of responsibility, and the initiative of individuals. .. Thus there is a balance of freedom between the institution, whether national or local, and the individuals Who sustain its existence.31

The system delineated by Baha’u’llah, it can be seen from these passages, incorporates elements of democracy but is not limited to conceptions drawn specifically from it. The Bahá’í Faith attaches great importance to the diversity of human thought and experience, but it does not encourage extreme individualism that would threaten the common good. The benefits provided to the individual in the social environment created when he or she surrenders a degree of personal freedom to an accepted system of order far outweigh any sacrifice, in the Bahá’í View.

Writing of the unique character of the Administrative Order of the Bahá’í Faith, Shoghi Effendi clarified that While that Order is not patterned specifically after autocratic, aristocratic, or democratic forms of government, it “embodies, reconciles and assimilates Within its framework such Wholesome elements as are to be found in each one of them.”32 For example, the authority of the sacred texts of the Faith is upheld, as are the interpretations of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, Who followed in the line of hereditary succession from Baha’u’llah. Democratic elections, conducted by secret ballot and characterized by an absence of features such as nominations, electioneering, factionalism, and concern for power, are held either by direct or indirect vote for all governing councils that administer the affairs of the community around the world. Yet, once elected, members of the institutions are not responsible to those Who elect them but have the

31.Universal House of Justice, Individual Rights and Freedoms in the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, a letter to the followers of Bahá’u’lláh in the United States of America, 29 December 1988 (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1989), p. 9.

32. Shoghi Effendi, World Order ofBahd 'u 716%, p. 152.

237

[Page 238]THE Bahá’í WORLD

obligation “to follow, in a prayerful attitude, the dictates and promptings of their conscience” Without being swayed by “the feelings, the general opinion, and even the convictions of the mass of the faithful.”33

Since elections are carried out in a spiritual atmosphere, the electorate expects that those it chooses will be spiritually responsible——a concept entirely foreign to secular forms of governance. Moreover, its emphasis on non-adversarial and cooperative decisionmakjng, the devolution of power to the grassroots of society, and the necessity of involving the voices of women and the dispossessed, stand in sharp contrast to the machinery of prevailing democratic forms of governance. It is a model that simultaneously educates and engages, and provides powerful tools for effecting meaningful changes Where unproductive habits have impeded progress. As Shoghi Effendi states,

...this divinely revealed Order, Which can never be identified With any of the standard types of government referred to by Aristotle in his works, embodies and blends With the spiritual verities on Which it is based the beneficent elements Which are to be found in each one of them. The admitted evils inherent in each of these systems being rigidly and permanently excluded, this unique Order, however long it may endure and however extensive its ramifications, cannot ever degenerate into any form of despotism, of oligarchy, 0r Of demagogy Which must sooner or later corrupt the machinery of all man-made and essentially defective political institutions.34

In short, the order delineated by Baha’u’llah is spiritual in nature; values are not grafted onto it but inherent in it. The Bahá’í Faith offers a model of a changed society, a new paradigm suited to the needs of a “postsecular” global world. In the words of Shoghi Effendi:

The Revelation of Baha’u’llah, Whose supreme mission is none other but the achievement of this organic and spiritual

33. Shoghi Effendi, cited in The Constitution Ofthe Universal House of Justice (Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1972), p. 6. 34.1bid., p. 154.

238

[Page 239]WORLD WATCH

unity of the whole body of nations, should, if we be faithful to its implications, be regarded as signalizing through its advent the coming ofage Of the entire human race. It should be Viewed...as marking the last and highest stage in the stupendous evolution of man’s collective life on this planet. The emergence of a world community, the consciousness of world Citizenship, the founding of a world civilization and culture...shou1d, by their very nature, be regarded, as far as this planetary life is concerned, as the furthermost limits in the organization of human society, though man, as an individual, will, nay must indeed as a result of such a consummation, continue indefinitely to progress and develop.35

Looking to the future, Eric Hobsbawm echoes the uncertainty of many contemporary thinkers when he concludes Age of Extremes with the words, “We do not know where we are going,” but he surely makes a profound observation when he continues, “However, one thing is plain. If humanity is to have a reoognizab1e future, it cannot be by prolonging the past or the present. If we try to build the third millennium on that basis, we sha11 fail. And the price of failure, that is to say, the alternative to a Changed society, is darkness.”36

Earlier in the century, historian Arnold Toynbee, in A Study of History, drew a parallel between the general obscurity of the Christian church in the second century of its existence and the corresponding lack of awareness of the Bahá’í Faith on the part of most educated Westerners midway through the twentieth century, going on to speculate about “how utterly the future might be hidden. . .from the mental Vision of a Western student” today.37 Hobsbawm’s remark points up the continuing relevancy of Toynbee’s observation. Yet the Vision of the future held by members of the Bahá’í community, however little it may be understood as yet by the majority of the planet’s inhabitants, refutes the idea of encroaching darkness; the Bahá’í Vision is, in contrast, one of great promise. Expression to it was given in a 1etter written in 1988 to the

35. Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Bahd ’u ’Zldh, p. 163.

36. Hobsbawm, Age ofExtremes, p. 585.

37. Arnold Toynbee, A Study oinsz‘ory, V01. 8 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 117.

239

[Page 240]T115 BAHM WORLD

Bahá’í community of the United States, focusing on individual rights and freedoms in the World Order of Baha’u’llah, in Which the Universal House of Justice says,

The spirit of liberty Which in recent decades has swept over the planet with such tempestuous force is a manifestation of the vibrancy of the Revelation brought by Baha’u’llah. His own words confirm it. “The Ancient Beauty,” He wrote in a soul—stirring commentary on His sufferings, “hath consented to be bound With chains that mankind may be released from its bondage, and hath accepted to be made a prisoner Within this most mighty Stronghold that the Whole world may attain unto true liberty.”

Might it not be reasonably concluded, then, that “true liberty” is His gift of love to the human race? Consider What Baha’u’llah has done: He revealed laws and principles to guide the free; He established an Order to channel the actions of the free; He proclaimed a Covenant to guarantee the unity of the free.

Thus, we hold to this ultimate perspective: Baha’u’llah came to set humanity free. His Revelation is, indeed, an invitation to freedomu—freedom from want, freedom from war, freedom to unite, freedom to progress, freedom in peace and joy.38

In summary, the Bahá’í model of social organization or collective life incorporates the spiritual principles and the moral values Which contemporary social commentators are seeking, and at the same time it provides a framework for governance that protects individual rights. Inclusive rather than exclusive, it affirms the spiritual truth at the heart of all the maj or religions of the world. The balance of rights and responsibilities it promotes is suited to the needs of this new age, an age destined to move towards light, not darkness.

38. Universal House of Justice, Individual Rights and F reedoms, pp. 21—22.

240