Politics as a Complex Adaptive System
Note on its Dynamics
by Kosaku Dairokuno
Professor of Comparative Politics School of Political Science & Economics Meiji University 1-1 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-Ku Tokyo 101 Japan
E-mail : ac00021@isc.meiji.ac.jp
Abstract
It has been increasing felt that one needs to develop a new theoretical framework in order to properly understand the dynamics of politics, the dynamics of political structuration in particular. We, however, have suffered from a deep-rooted tacit belief in reductionism which more often than not, reduces a complex political phenomena into the actions and interactions of independent political actors. Virtually no systematic consideration has been given to the independent role played by both formal and informal political institutions and structures around which actions and interactions of political actors revolve. Clearly, the political institution has its own logic and dynamics to reproduce itself by "influencing the structuration of society (the rules of the game) itself in particular historical situations." In this sense, politics can be interpreted as a dynamic process of interactions between political actors, and between those actors and institutions. Here one can sense a possibility or even an inevitability to introduce the idea of complexity. This summery is an attempt to identify some of the critical problems in order to develop a theoretical framework more commensurate with political realities which is essentially dynamic and complex.
I. Politics as a complex phenomenon:
a. Politics is not merely the product of interactions between independent political actors in the free political market.
b. Choices available for independent political actors are not infinite but essentially constrained by the various "rules of the games." Political actors act rationally within the given environment: they either accept the predominant "rules of the game" (a particular structuration of a society in a particular historical situation) or try to change them strategically or tactically.
c. Political institutions are not essentially neutral themselves, but also try to influence those "rules of the game" according to their own logic and dynamics to reproduce themselves.
d. Therefore, one of the major characteristics of political phenomena is the conflict over the control of those "rules of the game," let alone the choice among policies.
e. Historically politics has always involved the above dynamics, but the form of political system (political organization) has changed from the kinship, city-state, and empire, to the nation-state.
f. How is it possible that the iteration of essentially the same actions (the competition for the control over the "rules of the game" ) lead to a different set of "rules of the game" and even to a different form of political system?
g. In this sense, any system, which seems to be stable at one point, is always on the process of transformation. In other words, the system can survive by changing itself constantly. What is then the dynamics of this change? Is it endogenous, exogenous or both in character?
h. For ordinary people with limited perspective in time and space, this sort of change seems to come either gradually or abruptly. One usually called the former the evolution and the latter the revolution. Is there any pattern of change which can be understood as "self-organizing"? If so, what is the relationship between such "self-organization" and the intentional behaviors of human beings?
II. Some Implications of Modern Political Thoughts:
a. From the medieval organism to the modern individualism: The emergence of independent and autonomous individual. Machiavelli posited an individual as an active creator of political order. However, he recognized the existence of fate (fortuna) which can not be changed by the free will of an individual. According to him, an individual has only virtue (virto) to tame this fate.
b. The state as an artifact of individuals: Here the state is neither a natural product nor a self-organizing structure. According to Hobbes, it is created by the will of individuals for individuals. Like a clock, the state is a product of technical art of human beings. Although his theory was used to legitimize the authority of the absolute monarchy at the time, it prepared the conception of the right of revolution.
c. The recognition of "more than the sum of the parts": Rouseau, starting from the same assumption as Hobbes that the state is a product of autonomous individuals, realized the need to introduce the "general will" which is more than the sum of the individual will, in order to achieve a stable order. He was faced with a dilemma that it is almost impossible to achieve a stable political order as far as individual basic rights are absolute in character. This dilemma should be resolved through "compassion" (self-regulation) toward other individuals, which is inherent in human nature. However, he admits that individuals are "forced to be free" because the self-regulation through compassion, however desirable it may be, does not necessarily work in reality.
d. The recognition of "self-organization": Adam Smith recognized a dynamism of "self-regulating" market mechanism (invisible hands). Regardless of the will of each individual, the economic system functions according to its own logic. It should, however, be clear that he admits the significant role played by morals, if one wants to keep the economic system from running out of control.
e. The "spontaneous order" : Michael Polanyi suggests the existence of "tacit dimension." According to him, we can create a "spontaneous order" without consciously knowing what other people are going to do. By implications, he seems to suggest that we could create a stable order if there were no intentional intervention from outside.
III. The Problems
a. We can find many instances which suggests the existence of "self-organization." It may create an order of its own.
b. The "self-organization" seems to have its own dynamics, which may or may not be desirable for human-beings.
c. Each individual has its own values, wants, needs, and interests, and tries to achieve those regardless of the "self-organization" process.
d. Some people or groups have more power and resources than others, which are big enough to disturb the natural process of "self-organization."
e. Therefore, the "self-organization" usually tend to be biased in favor of those individuals and groups.
f. This suggests the room for maneuver for individuals and groups, even if there is indeed the process of "self-organization."
g. The idea of "political" is to be further elaborated when dealing with the "self-organization" process. The concept of "complex adaptive system," however attractive, is not complex enough to be applied to the political phenomena.
Copyright (C) 1998 Kosaku DAIROKUNO, all rights reserved.
Uploaded (on the Web) : Mar/12/1998