Not all institutions deserve defence. The ones that do are the ones whose loss would most damage the populations most dependent on them.
The Defence Standard
The defence of existing institutions — the resistance to the changes that would undermine their function or eliminate their existence — is warranted for the institutions whose elimination or degradation would most damage the populations most dependent on them and least able to find alternatives. This standard identifies the institutions worth defending not by their age or their prestige but by their actual function for the populations who depend on them. The public school that is the primary institution through which low-income children access educational opportunity is worth defending — its elimination would most damage the children who cannot afford the private alternative. The social insurance programme that is the primary income support for elderly people without private pensions or family resources is worth defending — its elimination would most damage the people for whom it is the primary protection against poverty in old age. The democratic institution that provides the formal mechanism through which citizens can hold governments accountable is worth defending — its erosion most damages the populations with the least alternative access to institutional accountability.
The defence of existing institutions is not the same as the defence of everything about existing institutions. The institution worth defending is worth defending against the changes that would eliminate or degrade its primary function for the populations most dependent on it — not against the reforms that would improve its function for those populations. The distinction matters because institutional defence is a limited political resource that is most valuable when directed toward the institutions and the institutional features that are genuinely worth the cost of defence.
The institutions worth defending are the ones whose loss would most damage the people most dependent on them. The standard identifies which institutions to defend and which institutional features within them to defend — and it distinguishes the defence of the institution's primary function from the defence of the institutional interests that the institution has accumulated alongside its primary function. Both can be called institutional defence. Only the former is worth the cost.
Discussion