Adam Smith, Subordination, and Democracy

I've just been reading the part of On the Wealth of Nations wherein Adam Smith starts talking about political theory as such, as opposed to economic theory. It's very interesting. The first section was a lengthy discussion about military readiness in various kinds of societies, which seemed astute though not really my favorite subject. Currently he's talking about the administration of justice, and the relationships of subordination which are implicit in the notion of civil government. (Yeah, I know, more on that later.) According to Smith, there are four criteria on the basis of which one man might have authority over another:

1. Personal qualities, either of the body or of the mind
2. Age
3. Wealth
4. Superiority of birth

Personal qualities of the body, he says, are rarely of much importance, since even the very strong can be overpowered by two or three ordinary men. Qualities of the mind may conceptually give one a great deal of power over a great many, but since they are invisible qualities, societies rarely use them as the basis for social hierarchies. Age is nice and objective, so when there's not much else to go on it becomes the tie-breaker of rank, and in a hunter-gatherer society where there isn't much wealth, it is often the chief determinant of rank. Wealth will almost always matter more than either personal qualities or age, so long as some have more of it than others, but for various reasons it will matter the most in a nomadic shepherding society, and less in a more advanced society where the favors doled out by a rich man are doled in return for money. Superiority of birth, meanwhile, is primarily the residue of the wealth of one's ancestors, and so will matter most in societies where wealth stays in families for a long time without being dissipated.

Now, as I said above, the notion that civil government implies subordination is somewhat undermined by that most wonderful invention, democracy. It isn't entirely destroyed, though, since most of the people in a democratic government, be they judges, police officers, or the legislature as a whole, have a fair amount of authority to tell other people what to do. What I think is interesting is that, in a certain sense, a democratic form of government is designed to allow personal qualities of the mind to matter in deciding who will get to wield the public authority. Electoral campaigns are largely about showing that one person or another has the best combination of ideas and mental capabilities. Appointment to administrative positions, or to judicial ones, is usually based primarily on the same qualities, if only because the public won't like it if incompetent people get appointed because of their wealth or nobility. Hiring for those positions in public service which interact directly with the public, like police officers, proceed as hiring for most jobs, with considerable attention paid to a person's ability to do the job.

Now, of course, politics is not a "meritocracy" in the sense in which that word is usually meant. But personal qualities of the mind do matter a lot in determining who gets to hold political power. They're not the only thing, but they are indisputably one of the things that matters. Not being an expert in non-democratic forms of government I wouldn't want to state this for certain, but democracy may well be the only form of government in which personal qualities of the mind do matter for allocating public authority. This is not the principal argument for democracy, but I think it's a non-trivial point in its favor.