Systemic Problems II

[Parwan]

Systemic Problems II

Can't We Do Things Differently?

In October, 1747, Afghan tribes came together near Kandahar for a Loya Jirga, or great meeting, to choose their leader. There were nine days of discussing, shouting, arguing…Finally a religious figure named Sabir Shah came out of his sanctuary and stood before the assembly. He declared that the best man for the job was the one who had sat wisely and silently while others had loudly promoted themselves. This man was Ahmad Shah Durrani. Ahmad Shah was elected king and went on to establish a significant empire.

Thus it occurred, at least according to Pushtun tradition.

Across the world and throughout history, there have been many ways of selecting leaders. A monarchy, obviously, does not operate on the basis of free and fair elections featuring universal suffrage. However, such a government does not have to stick strictly to the idea that the first born male of the current king is absolutely, certainly, and always the one and only person who can succeed him. There are other ways of operating, even for authoritarian systems.

This is the second in a series of threads under the general tittle of "Systemic Problems." The idea is to look at Martin's world another way: If one is confronted by a deep systemic problem, it will do no good to look at it as a series of single-point failures. In the seven kingdoms, we have more than just a deep problem; we have a near-total systemic breakdown. It's not good enough to say that Dany is a bitch, Stannis is a hypocrite, Eddard was too dumb to live….

I think it useful to divide the original post into two. The first one is more general. The idea is something like this: Isn't there a systemic problem in the seven kingdoms? In the first thread of this name, various issues were raised and various objections to my concept of "stasis" were made. For example, it's legitimate to say that the whole idea of continual progress is a modern one. Why wouldn't a medieval society be static? I'll attempt to deal with some of these points in this thread. Partly this will be done by looking at characters and ideas that I think might move Westeros in a better direction.

[Parwan]

Now, let's say that we have a fantasy land with a history of sorts stretching back thousands of years. It has been unified for only about 300 years. Up until a short while ago, the current Baratheon dynasty had to its "credit" a single ruler--a fat sot who abused his wife, beggared the kingdom, and failed to produce a legitimate heir. The fat sot died and left a friend in temporary charge as Lord Protector of the Realm. Couldn't this protector have shown some creativity, some flexibility in his thinking? Did he really have to insist that "It is not a choice. Stannis is the heir." My answers to the questions are "yes" to the first and "no" to the second. A man of honor does not have to be dogmatic in his interpretation of law, history, tradition, etc.

I don't believe that the question "Who should wind up on the throne?" is all that important. And Azor Ahai? It's quite possible that he was some powerful guy a few thousand years ago who got drunk one night and killed his girlfriend. He was a big shot though, so a great legend grew up around him. One unfortunate aspect of such legends is the "We need a hero to save us" syndrome. On the other hand, there are characters within ASoIaF who have at least an inkling of an idea (or ideas) that could truly benefit the realm. They say things along the line of, "Can't we do things a little differently?" By now, you will no doubt guess that Eddard Stark is not one of these people. A good man, certainly, but not a creative thinker. Who, then, am I talking about? We'll explore that question in this thread.

As always, relevant comments are welcome, comments either about the general issue or individual characters whose actions relate to the issue.

[Parwan]

Unlike "Systemic Problems I," this thread hasn't generated any replies. I'll make a few more comments, then move on.

One of the replies to my first thread on this subject asked how we might get from the systemic problems of the seven kingdoms (e.g. stasis, the lack of new ideas on how to govern) to mistakes that plague the realm. Here's an example. In ADwD, Jorah has this to say to Tyrion:

"Might be the Volantenes are the clever ones and us Westerosi the fools. Volantis has known her share of follies, but she's never suffered a boy triarch. Whenever a madman's been elected, his colleagues restrain him until his year has run its course. Think of the dead who might still live if Mad Aerys only had two fellow kings to share the rule."

Yeah, think of that. Think also of the fact that no maester or Westerosi intellectual (e.g. Tyrion Lannister) is making this observation. It's is Jorah Mormont, man of action, former lord, and present criminal. I believe that says quite a bit. This disgraced exile has the ability to see how a different way of doing things could be of real benefit to his land. The "great leaders" of the land (political, religious, and intellectual) appear to lack ability in this area. I'm not looking for some Whig ideal of constant progress. I'd settle for a bit of significant thinking on the subject of governance, some tendency to use the experience of others, modest modifications of traditions or variation of practices from the past, etc. I see no evidence of this in the leaders of the land. Indeed, I see evidence that they lack both the ability and the willingness to make any sort of worthwhile modifications.

[Parwan]

"…for the laughter of Mordor will be our only reward, if we quarrel."

Gandalf at the entrance to Theoden's hall, The Two Towers

"Cersei Lannister is laughing herself breathless."

Catelyn Stark in the field near Storm's End, A Clash of Kings

Three people argued matters in that field. In my opinion, Catelyn Stark was the only true adult. Unfortunately, she was also the only one who made no claim to the iron throne. I won't credit Cat with great diplomatic skills here. She could have put things better. However, she saw the matter clearly enough:

"If you were sons of mine, I would bang your heads together and lock you in a bedchamber until you remembered that you were brothers."

The main thing that I'd add was that the situation was actually worse than Lady Stark imagined. At some point, it should have occurred to the claimants to the throne that the weather was going to change for the worse. Then it did start changing for the worse. How did the Baratheons, Lannisters, Tyrells, etc. react to this? They didn't. It should be a fundamental principle for anyone who works "for the realm": If there is an actual existential threat, you take care of that first. Do the "leaders" of the seven kingdoms act this way? Overwhelmingly, the answer is "no." Briefly, we can put the matter in terms of Words--

Traditional Stark Words: Winter is coming.

Functional Words of Almost Everyone: We don't give a damn.

One cannot compromise. Our big chief is the true big chief. The magic monarch (i.e. the one who came from the right woman and the right man first) is the only important matter. Smash all the traitors. Crops are rotting in the field? Food isn't being properly processed and stored? Firewood isn't being chopped? To hell with all that. Couch lances, draw swords, charge!

[Chaircat Meow]

Might comment more fully later, but for now;

constitutional innovation in a feudal monarchy is not so easy. Who would have the motivation? The royal government, especially in westeros, is a pattern for the great lords and their lords below them. Give the king two co-rulers and the power of the Starks and Lannisters will break next, as they submit to colleagues.

This is not even so possible anyway; power is traditional, based on ancient history (who my father always knelt to) and ownership of land. Innovation designed to 'enhance' the system by altering these salient facts either would not occur or be worse than what it seeks to cure.

My knowledge is that most 'constitutions' in middle ages europe were based on privileges/tradition. They are appreciated for checking the powers of the monarch but they are not created for that reason, they are seen as inherited privilege, or laws of the lands the monarch cannot change.

[conon394]

"Might be the Volantenes are the clever ones and us Westerosi the fools. Volantis has known her share of follies, but she's never suffered a boy triarch. Whenever a madman's been elected, his colleagues restrain him until his year has run its course. Think of the dead who might still live if Mad Aerys only had two fellow kings to share the rule."

Actually I would disagree here since Volantis ran the table of folly back in the day got slapped back hard. Not to mention it is a tiny elite sitting a completely untenable but for the word of the author slave society. It even more locked in history than Westeros.

Who did the Mad king really hurt - a few High lords and he was otherwise quietly bonkers in his own Palace. His plan to burn the town fell out of the Rebellion winning. Dorne the North in fact retained their autonomy, the treasury was full, and no slavery honestly the odds say Westros even with the Mad king was better than Volantis. Jorah almost never opens his mouth but to say something stupid.

Couldn't this protector have shown some creativity, some flexibility in his thinking? Did he really have to insist that "It is not a choice. Stannis is the heir." My answers to the questions are "yes" to the first and "no" to the second. A man of honor does not have to be dogmatic in his interpretation of law, history, tradition, etc.

Actually no. The point is well constructed in the book Ned is on thin ice, has no allies in the city or only maybe those he barely trusts and is a fish out of water. He has no reason to shoot for some profound social change. In the North clearly Stark rule is both far less stratified and more equitable, he expects that his house would be the norm and is sadly mistaken in that but either imposing his style of feudalism or altering the game is beyond his means. He is not Cromwell sitting in Parliament with his loyal new model army, but a very isolated Lord outnumbered and out gunned and one who knows Renly is already kind of going to be a problem.

W/O the printing press, or a social force to push literacy (Athenian democracy, Protestantism so you can read the Bible etc) add in the closed word of the 'grey rats' and you have a recipe of static culture.

[Parwan]

Actually I would disagree here since Volantis ran the table of folly back in the day got slapped back hard. Not to mention it is a tiny elite sitting a completely untenable but for the word of the author slave society. It even more locked in history than Westeros.

Who did the Mad king really hurt - a few High lords and he was otherwise quietly bonkers in his own Palace. His plan to burn the town fell out of the Rebellion winning. Dorne the North in fact retained their autonomy, the treasury was full, and no slavery honestly the odds say Westros even with the Mad king was better than Volantis. Jorah almost never opens his mouth but to say something stupid.

...

I don't think that Volantis got slapped down as hard as the Starks. The Targaryens have taken some hard blows too. My main point, however, is that the seven kingdoms are facing true existential threats, and the "leadership," overall, is doing less than nothing to confront these threats. The Renly-Stannis encounter warns us that things are heading that way. The rest of the story serves to show that the warning was in no way false. People are getting slaughtered. People are going to freeze. People are going to starve. Continued war can only make these problems far worse. Let us continue the war. No, actually that sentence should read, "Let us accelerate the war." Ironmen attack the west; Aegon's forces (if he is Aegon) attack the east. Of course, we aren't given anything like a full history of Volantis, so any comparison can only be tentative. However, I believe that leadership of the city cannot possibly be worse than that of the seven kingdoms. The odds are pretty strong that it is better.

Concerning Jorah, I disagree strongly. The guy certainly has his faults, but he also has many good ideas and observations. He told Dany the truth about Viserys. His observation that Robert should have been born a Dothraki is insightful. It is his idea that the queen should go to Astapor to gain an army. He also makes the suggestion that she should speak only Dothraki and the Common Tongue while in the city.

More later.

[Parwan]

...

This is not even so possible anyway; power is traditional, based on ancient history (who my father always knelt to) and ownership of land. Innovation designed to 'enhance' the system by altering these salient facts either would not occur or be worse than what it seeks to cure.

My knowledge is that most 'constitutions' in middle ages europe were based on privileges/tradition. They are appreciated for checking the powers of the monarch but they are not created for that reason, they are seen as inherited privilege, or laws of the lands the monarch cannot change.

An important point I'm trying to make here: It is at least as valid to criticize the system as it is to criticize the people within it. Most commentary in these threads either centers on or involves the latter process. Character X is good, character Y is bad. so-and-so is either crazy or heading that way, such-and-such a person should end up on the throne...

Fine, but we can ask why the characters act this way. We can also point out that some of the reason why bad people gain advantages is that the social and political environment rewards such behavior. In Westeros, we have a society and political system which purports to go back thousands of years, a period of time longer than that between the Code of Hammurabi and the founding of the United Nations. If we even found the sort of power struggles that I believe existed in the middle ages--barons vs. king, wealthy town merchants and guilds vs. barons, peasants vs. nobility--then I think the situation in Westeros would be better, or at least have much greater potential for improvement. One can legitimately view ASoIaF as a sort of "what if" tale that is common in imaginative fiction (though more so in science fiction than fantasy): What if we had a society pretty much frozen in time, with recurrent bouts of magic, and with occasional long winters. What would be the result? Even if we say that a lot of this "freezing of time" is actually anachronistic, a matter of the current residents looking back and projecting their system upon their ancestors, this does not invalidate my criticism. After millennia, the western continent doesn't really have anything one could call a constitution. Privilege and tradition are just about everything. Worse than that, one tradition is slavish devotion to the master (king or lord).

I'm not saying that Martin is an old-style behaviorist, preaching to us on how shaping the contingencies of the environment determine everything. I'm definitely not saying that ASoIaF is a kind of morality tale that will end with someone saying, "And the moral of the story is..." However, when I read speculation that, say, Jon is Azor Ahai, or that Dany is turning into a villain and Jaime into a hero, I take it all with a good bit of salt. To me, the business about "shades of gray" pertains to Westeros as a whole, not just to the lords and ladies.

...

Actually no. The point is well constructed in the book Ned is on thin ice, has no allies in the city or only maybe those he barely trusts and is a fish out of water. He has no reason to shoot for some profound social change. In the North clearly Stark rule is both far less stratified and more equitable, he expects that his house would be the norm and is sadly mistaken in that but either imposing his style of feudalism or altering the game is beyond his means. He is not Cromwell sitting in Parliament with his loyal new model army, but a very isolated Lord outnumbered and out gunned and one who knows Renly is already kind of going to be a problem.

W/O the printing press, or a social force to push literacy (Athenian democracy, Protestantism so you can read the Bible etc) add in the closed word of the 'grey rats' and you have a recipe of static culture.

Thousands of years, and there is no assembly--parliament, diet, whatever. More than this, there is very little thinking (especially on the part of the high lords and the maesters) that would, over time, lead to such institutions. Ned, although a good man, is an unfortunate example of this--"justice flows from the king" and such attitudes. I also think that the matter of his position and power in King's Landing could be better analyzed than it has been on some threads. (Granted that I can't speak with great authority here. I definitely haven't read everything that has been written on the matter.) If he was on such thin ice, why didn't he have better knowledge of this fact? Almost to the end he is thinking, "Why doesn't this woman [Cersei] flee when I have given her every chance to do so?"

I don't ask any characters to shoot for profound social change. I'm looking for just a bit of creativity, some ideas on how things could change, even slowly, for the better. Lady Catelyn was capable of this. Hardly anyone near the top of the social order (including scholars and religious people) shows any ability at all. After the Renly-Stannis encounter, Cat continues to plead with the younger Baratheon brother:

"Robb will set aside his crown if you and your brother will do the same," she said, hoping it was true. She

would make it true if she must; Robb would listen to her, even if his lords would not. "Let the three of you call

for a Great Council, such as the realm has not seen for a hundred years... Let the assembled lords of the

Seven Kingdoms choose who shall rule them."

The wife thought of this possibility. Why couldn't the husband? It's a good idea; it is a creative use of tradition, not some call for social revolution. Of course, Renly rejects it out of hand.

[Castel]

Actually I would disagree here since Volantis ran the table of folly back in the day got slapped back hard. Not to mention it is a tiny elite sitting a completely untenable but for the word of the author slave society. It even more locked in history than Westeros.

It wasn't really folly. It was a calculated risk that could have paid off if Aegon had joined them. There's a difference between that and madness. If the war was unpopular then the other two would have blocked it no? If the war was insane they would have blocked it. The point is not to prevent mistakes, even bad ones, but insanity. There will always be mistakes, such a system is there to prevent something as catastrophic as Aerys' actions from happening without any sort of review.

[WinterKing]

The triarch system can lead the city to a deadlock, as happened in Rome sometimes, and for some situations a bad decision is better than no decision.

[Brynden Bloodraven Rivers]

Well, it's not like the lords's big interest is the folk. Varys says once to Ned: Why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?

So, who would change things? The lords have the power to do it, but not motivation, the folk has the motivation but not the power.

[juanml82]

I will contradict the idea that Westeros, or Essos for that matter, have been stagnant for 8,000 years. First, there was far less time between the First Men invasion (Bronze Age) and the Wot5K, and innovation has happened in the meantime. Think it this way: Middle Eastern/European Bronze Age was about 3,000 BC. Westeros seems to be around 1,500 DC minus gunpowder. that's 4,500 years. If the First Men reached Westeros circa 5,000 before Aegon the Conqueror, then it's not that different from the real world.

About social and political change: That doesn't come from those in power. Those in power want to preserve their own power and thus, will not attempt to dilute it for the good of the realm. They can express it openly, or they might have it internalized, as it happens with Ned's code of honor, Sansa's feelings towards 'lowborns' or the overall shunning social climbers as Littlefinger or Davos receive from older 'higher born' people, even if those people are poorer or less powerful.

Social change comes from the upper middle class, who wants to upset the social order for a new order which benefits them. There are signs of a growing merchant class in Westeros, who's starting to rival the lower nobility but I think Westeros is still a few centuries behind a French Revolution.

As for the High Lords and contenders to the throne disregarding the best interests of the realm and choosing their own selfish reasons instead, yes, you are right. Unfortunately, that's a common human trait. Many people will choose their own selfish goals instead of a common goal. It doesn't help that the existential threat to the realm is disregarded, specially by Ned and Robb Stark who, as Wardens of the North, are responsible for the realm's second line of defense against the White Walkers.

As for winter, starvation and the overall casualties of war, which aren't disregarded, quite simply no High Lord cares that much for the common folk except Doran Martell. And the common folk are in no position to challenge them, despite the BWB and the sparrows.

[Parwan]

The triarch system can lead the city to a deadlock, as happened in Rome sometimes, and for some situations a bad decision is better than no decision.

Jorah's comments are just an example of the sort of thing I'm looking for. He is one guy who at least at times wonders about the possibility of doing things differently. One advantage Essos has is variety. That's something that the seven kingdoms lack. We have maesters and intellectuals in Westeros. I don't think there is an example anywhere in ASoIaF of any of these people even wondering if the many different ways of organizing society in the east have anything to teach people on the western continent.

A related matter: The men of the Citadel are sometimes compared to scientists in these threads. Not hardly. To a large extent, they are men of dogma. The fact that they seem to be primarily materialists is irrelevant. Marwyn, as far as I can tell, is the only maester to even travel to the east. His opinion about the grey sheep, in general, seems to me well founded. He may be exaggerating things when he says they planned to kill Aemon. Or maybe he's right on target. However that may be, the maesters don't rank very high as scholars and thinkers. They believe they know more than they do, and they see no need to check facts by going to important places--whether east beyond the sea or north beyond the Wall. Thus, they fit into the general stagnation of Westeros quite well. It's true that Marwyn is more interested in magic than in politics. Still, there is a basic pattern, and both the lords and their advisers fit into it.

Well, it's not like the lords's big interest is the folk. Varys says once to Ned: Why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?

So, who would change things? The lords have the power to do it, but not motivation, the folk has the motivation but not the power.

Yes, that's a problem. As I indicated above, I'd like to see more people at least thinking about change. Also, it's a bit of a false dichotomy to split things up into lords and folk. Catelyn Stark is neither a lord nor a commoner. People like her do occasionally have good ideas and make worthwhile efforts. These efforts generally come to nothing. One can always hope for the future though. In line with my comments in other posts, I'd say this: I don't believe that the great moral differences many readers see between characters like Dany and Stannis are actually that great, often more nearly mole hills than mountains. I'm not so interested in the question of whether ________ (insert your favorite character here) will wind up on the iron throne. I'd like to know other things. For example, will there ever be another Great Council?

[Parwan]

I will contradict the idea that Westeros, or Essos for that matter, have been stagnant for 8,000 years. First, there was far less time between the First Men invasion (Bronze Age) and the Wot5K, and innovation has happened in the meantime. Think it this way: Middle Eastern/European Bronze Age was about 3,000 BC. Westeros seems to be around 1,500 DC minus gunpowder. that's 4,500 years. If the First Men reached Westeros circa 5,000 before Aegon the Conqueror, then it's not that different from the real world.

...

I wouldn't want to say that Westeros has been stagnant for 8,000 years. For one thing, time is extremely uncertain in ASoIaF. Maybe something happened 8,000 years ago, maybe 4,000. Maybe the Andals invaded 4,000 years ago, but some say it was only 2,000 years ago. Different plausible timelines can be presented. I'll still stick with my main points. The seven kingdoms impress me as even less enlightened than the European middle ages, and I believe they have probably been in this state for a good bit more than 1,000 years (roughly the extent of the middle ages). It is not just the nobility and the knights who have a slavish devotion to the leader. There is little thinking by anyone that challenges this devotion. Essos, despite the horror of Slaver's Bay, has some real advantages over Westeros. The mere fact that there are several different approaches to governance is important. Finally, there are people in ASoIaF (generally of roughly mid-level power) who have some decent ideas and make some worthwhile efforts. (Two I didn't mention here are Greatjon Umber and Asha Greyjoy). Very little comes of these efforts, but things may work out better in the future.

[Harold II]

W/O the printing press, or a social force to push literacy (Athenian democracy, Protestantism so you can read the Bible etc) add in the closed word of the 'grey rats' and you have a recipe of static culture.

Very true. It could be argued that some civilisations currently would be static if not for the outside worlds development influencing them.

For example :

- the paralysis in Afghanistan due to warring tribes (has been going for centuries, and 3 attempts to "modernise/conquer" them by the British Empire, Soviet Union and the recent US attempt haven't delievered long term stability or progress),

- the hermit kingdom North Korea wouldn't make an inch of social or technological progress without outside help

- some of the middle east countries are in a kind of stasis, unable to tackle the problem of seperation of Church and state without a "single state" caliphate, leaving rich princes exploiting populations/resources (which is how the west wants it).

- theres Mongolia, who seem pretty happy being static, without worrying about the rest of the world or progress.

- then you have all the "banana republic" countries, particularily in Africa and the pacific islands which are going absolutely nowhere.

And even if political systems are upset and changed from time to time, there is no guarentee that it progresses society. In fact, it usually hinders it.

And just look at a bicameral politcal set up like the USA - politically, America is virtually static - two political parties that are so powerful you can't change the balance - and a system that is so stubornly locked into its constitution by various vested interests that it can't change things for the better even if it wanted to. In some ways Australia with the power of mining companies is the same.

-----------------------

It is hardly surprising that Westeros hasn't changed all that much in 1000 years. Westeros' history is a bit like the middle ages evolving out of the bronze age without the influence of large prosperous "thinking" civilisations - rome/carthage/greece/persia. Conquest consolidated power, but there was no significant oppression of people leading to magna carta restrictions to the power of kings. No great need for structural reform.

That was a period that lasted 700 years or so in Europe, so why not 1000 in Westeros? No great outside power with new ideas sparking them on. And that 1000 year history pre-dated by bronze age civilisation. Now followed by basically a Norman invasion.

The system seemed pretty just as a monarchy (as noted even with a mad king), the power of the king tempered by the rivalries of the "state" regions. I think the closest they have come to political upheval was sparked by the mad king, but the dust still hasn't settled on that event. If there is to be change, the Song of Ice and Fire might be the story of that change.

Essos on the other hand seemed to be a hot bed of political ideas - republics, slavery, dictatorships, kingdoms, trade... Essos does seem to be a more advanced continent, or has the potential to be. Rivalry of ideas and the need for technological/ecconomic inovation was a big driver of civilisation in Europe, and that could describe the political situation in Essos.

Valaria seems very much to be the Rome of Essos. Westeros was outside their emprie however.