Power concentrates and societies ossify

In Nature, entropy rules.  Entropy is the degradation of the matter and energy in the Universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity.  Another way of putting this is that natural processes dilute power and destroy order. 

Life works in the opposite direction to that of Nature.  Life, whether human, animal, or plant, concentrates energy and matter for subsequent controlled release and consumption.  Life seeks to impose order on Nature which is chaotic.  Life is continually running against the tide of Nature, always struggling against its own inevitable death. 

Human social processes are Life processes.  As individual living beings we follow the pattern of all living things^[1].  Our pattern is more complex, it has more twists and turns than the pattern of an amoeba or an oak tree, but at heart it remains the quintessential pattern of all Life. 

Above all else Life is self-preserving.  Faced with a chaotic and unpredictable environment Life builds up reserves of energy, of action potential, both to maintain the routine of living, and to be able to counter the unexpected.  Primitive life forms build up energy reserves directly within their organisms.  More advanced life forms, such as people, also build up indirect reserves through the accumulation of possessions and power.  Power is the potential to influence the course of our own lives through our influence over the lives of others.  Power^[2] enables us to harness the energy of others for our own benefit or for the benefit of others. 

In the aggregate, our self-preserving behaviour as individual life forms yields the default dynamics, the automatic tendencies, of Society. 

Over time, default social processes concentrate power in the hands of an ever decreasing number of ever more closely linked and alike people.  Over successive generations any society, no matter what its economic basis of production, no matter whether it has a capitalist or a command economy, and no matter how democratic and egalitarian it may have been at the outset, will become increasingly stratified, rigid, and ordered, with power concentrating in an ever-shrinking upper layer.  Movement by individuals up the hierarchy of strata becomes increasingly difficult, first hampered, then stopped, by growing social barriers^[3]. 

The concentration of power is not always undesirable.  Some concentration is necessary to allow effective decision‑making. Hierarchical structures facilitate accountability and the implementation of decisions in large social groupings.  Advocates of decentralisation and the devolution of power often do not give sufficient consideration to the scarcity of human talent^[4]. 

Good administrators are scarce and it may well be that a centralised organisation run by a small group of competent managers, despite all the drawbacks of centralisation, will still be more effective, efficient, and even, more humane, than a decentralised organisation run by mediocre and pedantic bureaucrats. 

The calibre of many of our local and State administrators and politicians is frighteningly low, and a good case could be made, for example, for transferring the bulk of their responsibilities and funding to more centralised and more competent authorities.  Concentration of power in the hands of the able is desirable if that power is exercised in the interests of society as a whole. 

But ability is not a constant over time, within individuals, or within select social groupings.  Furthermore, the particular abilities we require will vary with the ever‑changing circumstances societies have to deal with. 

Also, diseconomies of size^[5] will eventually confound even the most able.  In the final analysis, ability is no match for the inertia and internal politics that beset organisations as they grow and age.  There will come a point where breaking up an organisation and reconstituting it into smaller, more focused, and independent organisations, will produce much greater benefits than upgrading the calibre of the single large organisation's management. 

Over time, default social processes lead a society, or any organisation for that matter, away from meritocracy, and democracy, towards oligarchy.  Inexorably, personal connections to the established power centre, and conformity with the status quo, become more important than ability in determining access to power and the centre of power.

The appearance of democracy, equity, and success based on merit may be maintained, but underneath the surface the deepening reality will be that of entrenching privilege. 

Few organisations will admit to this.  Ask any head of any Government Department if promotion within their organisation is based on merit and they will assure you that it most certainly is. Admitting that it is not would imply that they themselves did not necessarily get to the top by merit.

And in the world's self-styled bastion of freedom and democracy are political dynasties like the Bushes and the Kennedys not ironic, and a clear pointer to an underlying truth that will not speak its own name?

The private sector is no different.  Gradually the once new corporate raider with its brash young executives challenging the stuffy establishment, itself becomes part of the establishment, unless it goes broke first.  As the company ages, its managers age;  innovation is replaced by habit; risk‑taking gives way to caution; and up‑and‑coming brash new executives with experience levels equivalent to those the bosses themselves had when they started the business, are considered never yet to have the depth of experience necessary to share the reins.

The concentration of power in a society becomes undesirable when the exercise of power becomes the prerogative of individuals with personal connections to an elite.  When connections to that elite are more important than talent or ability in allowing individuals access to power then the whole of society suffers.  Society suffers because its most able are denied, or obstructed, from giving us the fruits of their talent.  Also, societies that have reached this stage tend to become more and more rigid, less able to capitalise on new opportunities, and less adaptable to changing circumstances.  As a consequence our objective of the long term survival of society^[6] is compromised because being able to adapt readily to change is a prerequisite for long term survival. 

Hand in hand with the concentration of power goes the concentration of wealth.  Wealth almost always implies power.  It is also more conspicuous, and tends to become the focus of the jealousies and frustrations of the growing numbers of people who are excluded from the power centre, as the concentration process runs its course. 

Individuals and groups disenfranchised from the power and wealth base, able and dim-witted alike, will not meekly accept their lot.  Human beings seek to improve themselves.  All individuals at all levels of society seek a better future.  When denied access to a society's legal avenues for self‑advancement, extra‑legal avenues will be used.  The frustration and hopelessness increasingly experienced by the growing underclass^[7] will also manifest itself in irrational extra‑legal acts that are not aimed at advancing the individual, but are simply a lashing‑out, a getting‑even.  Either way, the society will experience increasing levels of violence and crime, and a black market economy will grow.  Hopelessness^[8] and powerlessness will also foster apathy and civil disobedience, undermining the institutions of democracy.  Taken to its conclusion the existing society with its power structure founded on privilege will be collapsed either through anarchy or revolution. 

The natural life‑cycle^[9] of societies and civilisations is not conducive to the indefinite survival of the human species.  While many of these cycles have already occurred in the history of human civilisation, it can be argued that we have now reached a point in our technological development, where the damage caused by a collapse of 21st Century civilisation would border on irreparable^[10].  The recovery from the collapse of the Roman Empire took several centuries, but the demise of that civilisation did not have far‑reaching ecological effects.  A breakdown or further deterioration in the checks and balances on our civilisation, which has the capacity to annihilate itself many times over, is unthinkable. 

What are we to do^[11] to avoid such a collapse?