CIVILISATION - What are its essentials?

My friend John Fisher sent me a draft of a talk he will be giving on Civilisation. In it he gives a hugely informative overview of many civilisations, dealing with the contributions of the Romans, the Chinese and the Arabs to our own, focussing on the importance of the Law (John is a lawyer). It prompted these thoughts from me.

Your talk is wonderfully thought-provoking, particularly its focus on what Civilisation amounts to.

I was brought up on Kenneth Clark’s version (not just his - he was perhaps the most eloquent exponent) that Civilisation was best evidenced by the artistic wonders it produced. On this basis, 15th century Italy scored very highly indeed. Orson Welles said it all, famously, in the film The Third Man: “In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce . . . ? The cuckoo clock.”

I don’t like decrying all this - and still much admire Kenneth Clark’s 1969 TV programmes. But viewed from all the aspects of life that you explore in your erudite talk, it’s obviously nonsense as a definition of Civilisation. It’s great Art History (note the capital letters) - and none the worse for that.

We in the 21st century are becoming more and more aware of the fact that Peace is of crucial importance to a civilised way of life - more so than great art. And that Peace is a delicate flower. It relies on many things, many of which are also delicate flowers. You focus on Law, quite rightly. But civilised existence also relies on Liberalism (in the classic sense discussed by the great John Stuart Mill); and on Democracy (something that we are discovering can’t be implanted successfully in societies that haven’t grown up with it).

I think it boils down to a political and, crucially, cultural environment where disagreements (other than those which can be resolved in the law courts) are settled without violence and without wars or revolutions. We in England have enjoyed this (frankly unusual) situation for over 300 years, in fact since 1660 when Charles II was eased back onto the throne. We have been very fortunate. I’m not sure, looking around the world, whether there are many competitors. It makes one despair at the ignorance of apparently large numbers of young Brits who say that they are ashamed of our country and its past. They need to be careful what they wish for. Interestingly, their views are not shared by the many thousands of immigrants who often risk their lives to come here.

The key factor is of course Democracy, which many thoughtful people think is now coming under threat. But their reasons are sometimes surprising. Some believe that Donald Trump’s victory is a threat to Democracy. How can this be so? It seems to be their view that Democracy is threatened if the electors vote for someone who the intelligentsia - frankly, the upper echelons of society - disapprove of. (I am reminded of the aristocratic disgust expressed by the Duke of Wellington on seeing the House of Commons after the 1832 Reform Act: “I never saw so many bad hats in my life”. Elements of our modern intelligentsia seem to be the new aristocrats.)

My definition of Democracy is different. Democracy is fundamentally a system that allows the public to kick the incumbents out if they, the public, feel so inclined. Which is exactly what happened when Biden lost the US presidential election. And indeed what happened at the end of Trump’s first term. Democracy is only threatened if the incumbent fails to go - not when the public get what they vote for.

We also need to fear for the future of Democracy if forces in our societies manoeuvre to stop the public voting for the candidates they want - something we have been seeing a lot in Europe. That’s where we need to be careful.

Tony Herbert

27 June 2025