One would assume that by now, we have all come to a consensus that there is no perfect system of political governance and that our best hope currently lies in finding a good balance of principles between different governance systems.
A more controversial proposition may be that all forms of governance are capable of progressing society under the right conditions. This may contradict the common notion that representative democracy carries the day in this regard, but a closer inspection of the evidence in my view shows it to be more nuanced than that.
The obvious example in this regard is China, to which many will cry out: “It’s a capitalist economy!” The fact of the matter, however, is that the governance is communist from hair strand to toenail. Needless to say, it is important to distinguish governance from economic systems, which many seem not to.
In addition to China, the dictators in the Middle East seem to also have a good grasp on the concept of progressing society, or shall we continue to pretend that there is a resemblance of democracy in Saudi Arabia or Dubai just because there is some affiliation with western society. We might not be agreeable to the methodology of chopping off heads, but shall we deny that they have well developed societies?
Having sufficiently poked the bear and provoked thought, to which i am certain to get pushback, let us progress the conversation with a brief look into the concept of democracy. I am fascinated by it; it carries with it so much promise, yet I cannot get over its basic premise, which I earnestly believe to be fundamentally flawed. Democracy assumes that the majority is always right! I do not feel the need to expand on why this is incredibly erroneous, surely dearest reader, you get it, right?
Whereas in history, humanity has strived to prove that their system of governance is the one system to rule them all, I am of the opinion that we should readjust our perspective to focus not on the systems themselves but the objectives of governance. At the heart of it all, what we are attempting to do is allocate the right resources to the ideas that progress society in the most efficient, incorruptible way possible. Easier said than done, but maybe it’s not an entirely hopeless endeavor, isn’t it. By focusing our efforts on this primary objective, we place ourselves in a position where we are less likely to be predudicial about the origins of the idea and focus more on its merits and pitfalls.
In the same spirit of focusing on objectives, we ought to also place emphasis on applying our minds towards identifying and resolving societal issues individually and in relation to the ecosystem of society’s challenges. This idea of focusing on actual issues brings to attention the next item of discussion, i.e., the concept of representation.
For practical reasons, all forms of current governance involve officials who represent the needs and wants of the broader society. What differs from system to system is the manner by which these representatives are selected, whether it be public/private vote or by placement from those with authority. The intent of representation is to select the personnel best suited in skill and temperament to understand and address the concerns of society in a specific area of expertise. The practical reality is that representation is fraught with corruption driven by personal ambition, which renders the exercise meaningless and often results in a frustrated society who fail to see any meaningful change with each elected official.
Some systems of selection seem to perform slightly better than others in selecting representatives, but in reality, it all boils down to the same soup. Whereas a strongman may pick his bloodline, to which we all know that knowledge, wisdom, and skill are not sexually transmitted attributes; a democratically elected official is equally a nonsensical approach as it assumes that one will actually do what they say they will do. In my view, taking one’s word as gospel is equally as stupid as the strongman’s methodology, but that’s just me, I guess. The more we ponder on the concept of representation, the more we realize that it is a case of choosing the lesser evil, and eventually, it will ultimately end in tears.
Maybe a better approach to it all is to collect the various ideas to issues from society and then select from those ideas which ones to implement regardless of the representative or even without a specified one. This obviously has its own challenges, but let us entertain the thought for a moment. The concept that what is important is implementing the right idea rather than attempting to pick the right person to find and execute an idea. It is certainly an interesting view and one that speaks directly to our desire to place emphasis on the resolution of actual issues.
I will leave the thought itching here and scratch in a future article where we will begin laying out the foundational framework of modern governance.