As a classic would say, sustainable and truly independent states, like families, are “happy” in the same way. The key to their sovereignty is the meritocratic principle of government and the presence of aristocracy in one form or another. In a perfect world, meritocracy (the rule by the worthy) lays the foundation for a healthy aristocracy, which in turn guarantees the adherence to meritocratic selection of rulers. It is the aristocratic elite, selected pursuant virtue, that is interested in the development of the state in the long run and the preservation of its independence.
Intelligibility in elite formation
Political leaders serve not solely as decision makers but also as role models. Therefore, in a meritocratic society, one’s influence is determined by merit. The nature of these merits depends on the demands of the state. Such orientations cannot be set by the unorganized majority, as it is incapable of thinking in terms of national interests and long-term planning while solving the problems of everyday existence. “Virtues” of this kind are embedded in the aristocracy, which, as a rule, is tied to the state both physically and spiritually.
In Europe, it was the aristocracy that acted as a link between the ruler and his subjects and restrained the power of the king, laying the foundation for a stable statehood. Genuine aristocracy is the filter of state decision-making, as it does not indulge the monarch’s desires unquestioningly and considers itself his equal.
Competence in governing the state and virtues such as courage, temperance, and charity are shaped in a favorable environment, where they tend to be honed over generations. They are inherent in aristocracy, which, unlike oligarchy in its antic sense, is guided by the interests of the state and all of its citizens, rather than their richest stratum. At the same time, ordinary citizens often mistakenly recognize aristocracy by its external characteristics: wealth, birth, appearance, but not by its intellectuality and morality.
The ancient ideals of wise and beneficent rule have stood the test of time and space. Meritocracy has been the basic principle of bureaucratic selection in Southeast Asian societies for more than a millennium. Examinations for imperial officers included not only theoretical questions but also tests of endurance under “Spartan conditions.” The residences of successful candidates were marked with special mentions of this. Western leaders as different as Bonaparte and Jefferson also praised meritocracy across the Atlantic. The French emperor opened military and political careers to “talent” and attributed much of his success to it, while Jefferson, the founding father of the American republican political system, sought not to avoid hierarchy at all costs but to build it on the basis of virtue, ambition, and talent rather than wealth and birthright.
Such a Jeffersonian elite would be a “natural aristocracy,” the embodiment of what would later become the American Dream, where each person would occupy a position in society commensurate with their abilities. The rulers of the country, as well as teachers and scientists, were to come from a natural aristocracy, not an “artificial” aristocracy established by birthright. The best form of government was the one that ensured the rule of the wisest and most ethical leaders – meritocracy.
Jefferson, being optimistic about human nature, intended to embody the rule by the worthy in traditional democratic elections. To nurture a critical society with clear moral compasses capable of distinguishing a true aristocracy, he proposed educational reform. The bill was blocked by wealthy and noble Virginia legislators who not only did not want to subsidize public education with their tax dollars, but also sought to maintain their own monopoly on knowledge and therefore governance. Decades later, Jefferson did establish the University of Virginia.
This is the true elite – serving as a role model of behavior and success, vital and curing human ills, rather than taking advantage of them in the name of enrichment and justifying the state failures. The lack of moral guidelines and their guardians leads society into a vicious circle of fascination and disappointment with further unworthy rulers.
The very aristocracy that founded the state no longer has comparable financial resources, and the “newer money” seeks to replace it, leading to increased social tension and polarization. However, continuity with the old aristocracy remains one of the pillars of stability and prosperity of American society. Its strong backbone of values and high ethical standards, the constitution it wrote, the cities it built, the universities, institutions and cultural institutions it founded, the transportation infrastructure it created – all of this constitutes the core of American identity 250 years later and sets clear guidelines for success in contemporary American society.
The inclusiveness of the true, “natural” aristocracy not only strengthens it, boosting its competitiveness, but also allows it to absorb the best elements of society, maximizing its potential. This factor is critical for small nations that have limited resources and can only rely on human capital. Moreover, ignoring the talents, merits and virtues of worthy members of society inevitably leads to their permanent exodus to countries where they will find use, perhaps even as future agents of influence in the country of origin.
Sovereignty and independence
Above all, sovereignty is the ultimate unified power: what distinguished the rulers of early European states from medieval emperors, popes, kings, bishops and nobles. The reason is simple: their powers were limited and overlapping, and their sovereignty was indivisible.
One of the key attributes of sovereignty under international law is the right to engage in international relations. De facto this right is limited to virtually all developing countries that align their external positioning with patron states. In a broader sense, any truly independent state executes the exclusive functions of a state within a certain territory, i.e. no other state or non-state actor can exercise them within its sovereign territory.
De jure sovereignty in the form of UN membership does not guarantee meaningful independence in the absence of a committed elite. Timeservers in power allow for and/or encourage enslaving financial and military-political treaties, delegation of sovereignty to other actors, territorial concessions, and interference of other states in their internal affairs.
Traditional interpretations of sovereignty are in one way or another related to the territorial control, but there are less visible and even more serious dimensions of sovereignty in an interdependent world, notably financial sovereignty. Because capital is concentrated among elites, and in developing countries mostly among the political elite, the choice of jurisdictions in which to keep it becomes particularly important for a state with sovereignty in question.
Thus, in a truly independent and accomplished country, where there is an aristocracy and public accountability, anyone aspiring for real political influence and belonging to the aristocracy is obliged to keep money in the homeland by their social position. It is hard to imagine anyone from the Kennedy dynasty keeping money in banks outside the US, and although it is possible in theory, each revelation of such incidents even among ordinary members of less aristocratic families provokes a strong backlash from the American public.
The choice of other jurisdictions and foreign banks to store capital, especially by poor countries with the most limited resources, flags to the international community that the “elites” do not link their own future with the country they are ruling.
In conditions of already doubtful investment potential and political uncertainty, such an arrangement not only undermines the economic prospects of the state, but also weakens its bargaining positions and leverage in the international arena. The effect of such behavior of “elites” is beyond symbolic: in fact, in case of a crisis that inevitably accompanies a market economy, the inflow of necessary funds earned in this country depends on the “good will” of the political and financial elite of the country where these funds are kept. Moreover, in an interdependent world, it is possible that a crisis in both jurisdictions will occur almost simultaneously, and it will become much more difficult to show goodwill.
The described scenario calls into question not only sovereignty – the supreme and unlimited right to dispose of this capital – but also the very survival of the state even as a formal unit. The state debt in foreign currency and its obligations under foreign law entail similar risks. All this cannot be allowed by the true aristocracy, which not only influences state decision-making, but also has value guidelines with quite real consequences in case of refusal to follow them, i.e. has serious internal constraints.
A finance-related and critical story is public infrastructure, which has been massively privatized almost everywhere in recent decades. The quick money from the sale of inefficiently managed state assets lulled populations and some aristocrats even in established states like the UK. The sobering effect of the resulting dominance of foreign capital has begun only recently. Despite successful examples of modernization in transport, finance and other sectors, foreign ownership makes it virtually impossible to develop similar infrastructure of its own, i.e. makes important sectors of state functioning dependent on the “good will” of the new owners. There is a more important problem: it is obvious that no matter how good “corporate” citizens or subjects foreign businesses are, their profits are invested in improving the infrastructure of the country of origin and strategic decisions regarding their functioning are also made abroad.
Therefore, if privatization of communications, knowledge, and subsoil is inevitable, clear barriers must be built not only for foreign capital, however friendly it may be at the moment, but also for all those who are unable to think in terms of long-term national interests.
The aristocracy should be interested not only in managing strategically important assets, but also in preventing those who willingly or unwillingly pose a threat to national security and sustainable development of the country from accessing them.
Virtually all developed countries have sovereignty over their infrastructure, expressed in the form of the right to block deals on its acquisition from abroad, even from allies in military-political blocs, and the existence of specialized bodies that check their compliance with the national interests.
Aristocracy on the lookout for independence
Only those segments of society that, firstly, realize the value of sovereignty, and secondly, link their future with the Motherland despite their competitiveness, are able to prevent the sovereignty giveaway. Such members of society sustain the state immunity system and its resistance to shocks, as well as stability in the conditions of change of power. As a rule, it does not affect the true aristocracy, because it connects the nation’s past and its future. Changes in the composition of governments, which fulfill technical tasks within the framework of the global goals set for it by aristocracy, are unable to shake its course.
Why are the good intentions of such families and groups not enough and the rule by the worthy is deemed as necessary? “Good intentions” and “love for the homeland”, which surely characterize many historical and current saboteurs of the Armenian statehood, simply cannot be put to good use and then implemented in the absence of set state orientations and competencies to follow them. To confront global challenges and make autonomous decisions that will lead to the strengthening of the state, one needs savvy, which is achieved in the course of generations, but only with proper reflection – otherwise former mistakes are reproduced. Acting for the benefit of the homeland for generations and linking the future of descendants with it are necessary but insufficient criteria for aristocracy.
The presence of the aristocracy and its meritocratic selection becomes the key to achieving and maintaining meaningful independence. Otherwise, the “elite” driven by short-term interests and insufficiently beneficent to garner public support, finds it externally, thereby putting an end even to formal sovereignty. Many societies, from the Scots to Armenians, have been overcoming consequences of such mistakes for centuries, if not millennia.
