Governance in the Post-Apocalypse

Warning: The following contains light spoilers for The Walking Dead. 

This past Sunday was the fifth season finale of the immensely popular The Walking Dead. Because I am a big political nerd I cannot help but notice that many of the seasons following season one are wrestling with questions of governance. It should be noted that The Walking Dead is no way unique in this. Post-apocalyptic literature, film, and television have often tried to deal with the questions of rebuilding order when everything falls to hell. Part of the explanation for this is the close relationship between the post-apocalyptic and dystopian genres. Very few stories simply deal with the aftermath of the collapse of the 'old world', but instead include the  tendencies of our fellow man in dark and twisted new societies.

If there's people, someone must be in charge.

Most of the time in post-apocalyptic fiction the narrative focuses on a small group of survivors, usually fewer than twenty. Is that really government? Government is a complicated word and imbued with a lot of what we think of as the state. Governing per se is nothing more than providing management and direction. The lesson of most fiction indicates that lone wolves who exist outside of a community or group are usually not long for this world. Any time two people interact there are structures and patterns in place to 'govern' behaviour, but as a group grows in size these patterns must be strictly outlined and made formal. So, while a group of survivalists picking through the ruins of our civilization may not seem the same as what happens in the House of Commons (or maybe too similar...) there is a common thread there.

First let's take a look at the arc of The Walking Dead. Season one of the series was much more focused on the question of what has happened and how to survive. Rick Grimes, a former sheriff, and close associate of several among a group of survivors instantly becomes the de facto leader. However tensions exist within the group, particularly with his best friend and former colleague Shane. Season two and onwards much more tackles the question of governance. In many ways the failures of the group can be tied to factionalism and rival leadership camps. Famously at the close of the second season Grimes says after challenging the group about his decisions, "If you're staying, this isn't a democracy anymore." How to govern the group is often at the heart of conflict in the series.

Since that point, despite the fact that Rick's power in the group has waxed and waned and waxed again the fundamental element has remained in place that once Rick has made a decision the group keeps to it. Instead of infighting the group has produced a number of trusted advisors who counsel Rick (Herschel, Glenn, Michione, Carol, to name a few), but ultimately stick with his policies, even when they disagree. In brief, season three saw the consequences of Rick's unchecked powers and approach. When the group was established inside the prison in season four we see Rick relieved of leadership and a "Council" take charge of running day-to-day affairs until things reach a crisis point. Season five saw the return of Rick's advisor-assisted leadership. The central conflict in the most recent season was the tension between two different governing structures: Rick's group with a centralized, pragmatic and harsh leadership style versus the more traditional, theoretically democratic and lenient style of the Alexandrians. Remember, governing is not just about making decisions and giving orders; how to carry out justice and relationships with outsiders is also part and parcel of the responsibilities of leadership.

The Walking Dead is hardly unique in this depiction. Within the zombie genre Max Brooks' World War Z rarely shows a vibrant democracy, but a much harsher, more centralized, more militant, less democratic governance all around the world. The 28 Days Later/28 Weeks Later films depict military-based governance, as does the video game TheLast of Us and TV series Falling Skies. In all three cases the military is depicted as a means of providing security (the most precious commodity in instability) but also oppression or containment of the people they are protecting.

Communities tend to find creative places to call home after the end.

Interesting enough is that even democratic governments that survive in many pieces of fiction immediately take on extra-legal powers to control the chaos. In the novel One Second After or the TV series Jericho) the elected municipal governments begin acting like city-states to try to survive in the absence of the state and national governments.

Another common trope in the post-apocalyptic genre is the theocracy. In times of crisis people often turn to religion as it is a powerful unifier that provides social cohesion in a way a single leader often cannot. Margaret Atwood's A Handmaiden's Tale blends the military rule and religion quite nicely, but the results are the same. James Kuntsler's series of post-collapse novels prominently features a strange religious group with a prophet-like figurehead and a charismatic leader in the ruins of Upstate New York.

The theme repeated over, and over again in hundreds of books is remarkably similar. The new leadership class tends to come from ex-military (Mike Havel in Dies the Fire), police (Rick Grimes in The Walking Dead), former/current politicians (Johnston Green or Senator Tomarchio in Jericho or the Warden in Children of Men) or a charismatic, capable person (Carnegie in The Book of Eli or Caesar in Fallout: New Vegas). Ultimately the "Strong Man" governance all likely stems from the inverse sentiment of the Benjamin Franklin statement, "Those who would sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserves neither." As wise as Benjamin Franklin was there exists many instances when centralized control is badly needed in emergencies. Post-apocalyptic fiction trades on the fact that scared people will surrender a great deal of authority to those who can protect them, provide for them and keep them safe. To be sure this is not a new phenomena. Think back to the Republic of Rome who would surrender its semi-democracy to a dictator in times of profound crisis. In the modern United States there are any number of provisions to institute martial law to keep order. 

In my opinion writers in this medium and consumers of it are attracted to authoritative or authoritarian for some very simple reasons. While the leadership model provides a structure for traditional hero narratives it also harkens to our own thinking of how to deal with issues. In addition we admire, just as the other characters within the narrative, competent and capable leaders. It also helps from the perspective of elevating characters and creating drama. Believe it or not, but The Walking Dead and other post-apocalyptic fiction are deeply political. They are not only critiquing social issues but providing a framework to work out fundamental philosophical questions at the heart of governance and ethics that have been debated since before Ancient Greece. I know a lot of people have had the conversation/debate over what their "Zombie Survival Plan" is, but have you ever thought what your plan to rebuild and get along with your fellow survivors might be? Ultimately that's what might keep you alive longer than any machete or canned food.

Bring in the Technocrats

On June 11^th of this year I wrote a piece called the “Failure of Leadership” where I highlighted the intense failures of government at all three levels in my home region, province and country. Having strong opinions on matters it is not difficult to feel disappointed in our elected leaders, but I expect that. I feel as though I can separate my partisan and political differences and appreciate good governance when I see it. When I look at jurisdictions around the continent it seems like people, above all else, desire competence over ideology.

Let’s begin with the looming American elephant. For over a decade now it appears that the governing class of the United States is incapable of running the country it is sworn to serve. I should be more specific, the federal government. The articles I routinely read about successful mayors and governors in the United States definitely offers hope. Sadly these leaders operate with the hindrance, not support of their federal peers. It is a popular tact for other orders of government to beat up on each other, it also makes for fine politics, but it seems remarkably true. Mayors struggle to build their cities into globally competitive, attractive locations because of antiquated federal government policies around transit, or economic policies that hurt cities.

The American deficit/budget crisis is really not that complicated a problem. A combination of spending cuts and tax increases will be required to counter severe budget problems in the long-term. Many moderate, sensible political observers note this with great regularity, but the American ruling class exists in a political climate where it is unprofitable to take such actions. A “cuts only” tact that the Republican want to take might work, if they agreed to return to the early twentieth century roots and dramatically slash military spending. Democrats could delay cuts to social programs if they were willing to propose bold measures like a national sales tax.

This is not the reality the United States finds itself in. Therefore instead of measured, thoughtful compromise, or long-term plan, the Americans are dealing with a shut down government.

Things are not much better here in Canada. Because I am a sucker for punishment I have been following the grueling saga over the Scarborough subway/LRT. While I write about transit a lot, and it is a passion of mine, I am not an expert. However, people who are considered experts say that Scarborough would be best served by light rail. However, because of politicking by provincial parties, the Premier Kathleen Wynne (OLP – Don Valley West) and calamitous input from Toronto City Hall, a subway will be built (possibly). The proposed subway will serve less people, cost more money and take longer to build. Subways make for better politics and so there we are.

I imagine a great many people in the United States are very tired of their democratic government at the moment. It appears that our elected officials that supposedly speak for us increasingly represent narrow interests that unsurprisingly also serve themselves. If elected leaders are bad can anyone besides the voters be blamed? Perhaps it’s because politicians are ever only speaking to the ~50% who vote, or the under 25% who are paying attention (or will ever vote for them) at a given moment, but it certainly seems like we are getting less effective government.

In my moments of hopelessness I wonder if the public would be happier being served by technocrats. If the faceless bureaucrats, experts and intelligentsia just made decisions, accepted public feedback but never had to worry about elections would people be happier with government? If that were the case Toronto would probably have several fold more transit than it does today, and the United States would pass a budget annually, of that I am fairly confident.

During the heights of the Great Recession, when the West was feeling down on itself, eyes turned to countries like China that were accomplishing amazing things and using the economic crisis to spur recovery with incredibly projects. It helps that China is a totalitarian regime. We don't do many mega-projects like that anymore. The public won’t stand for them. As is oft quoted, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Is it citizens who are tired of democracy, and now politicians answer to the small number, such as myself, who are paying attention? The argument goes that public policy is too complicated to be carried out in mass media. Does a vote for one party in preference from another send any clear message? I think not.

I may be overly cynical at present as representative democratic governments from coast to coast to coast struggle. Competency, effective, predictable governance is critical to twenty-first century life and I worry how much the public at large cares about voting/participating to make it happen. If they don’t, well, bring in the technocrats.