The American Revolution and Universal Government: Part Three

[This is part three in a series; part one is here and part two is here.]

In Jefferson's system of ward republics, we are given to assume that each such ward should be treated equally, and likewise each county, and each state. In his book Empire of Liberty, Peter Onuf puts this concept of equality between political units at the core of Jefferson's philosophy.

[Jefferson's] Republican doctrine was... predicated on the autonomy and equal rights of the parts - individuals and states - that constituted new wholes [p.96]... From the very beginning of his political life, Jefferson recognized the central importance of the autonomy, integrity, and equality of republics as corporate entitites. [pp.112-3]

The premise that political units like states ought of course to be considered equal, just as individuals ought to be, is not subject to discussion by Onuf: but it is the most important problem faced by theories of extended (universal) government. In his successive subdivisions, Jefferson's concern is mainly to ensure the means of democratic participation by each individual within its unit. What he does not deal with is the actual inequalities between the units.

For example, one of Jefferson's wards might contain people who have lots of property, prestige, or other valuable thing that the neighbouring ward doesn't have. Or more fundamentally still, some will be on better land than others. These same kinds of inequality occur at all levels of the system, even if the number of people remains equal between different units (which is difficult to secure over time, even if they start out that way, which they didn't in America of course). Now if all the units are equal, then they presumably must pay the same tax, furnish the same number of men for militia service, and so on: this discriminates against the poor wards. But also, all must have the same amount of political representation and power: does this not discriminate against the rich wards? So the question is, do these discriminations balance out, and who decides if they do?

As well as this problem of differences between wards, there is also one of differences within wards. Think of it in much the same way as the 'first past the post' system in Parliament: voters for minority parties might make up a significant proportion of the country as a whole, but not of their respective constituencies. Where political decisions are made locally, the voices of diffuse minorities like these are inaudible: they face discrimination from majorities within their wards. It is the Bill of Rights that, in the Jeffersonian system, protects minorities like these, hence the importance of such guarantees to those who favor this kind of system: men like George Mason of Virginia, who wrote that state's Bill of Rights and fought against the U.S. Constitution because it did not contain one.