SOME COMMENTS CONCERNING GOVERNMENT

Man has been governed--i.e., ruled over--by one or another form of ruling entity since earliest times.  Technically, the group of prehistoric humans, huddled together in a cave, were "governed" by one or more of the most dominant males among them--who determined, perhaps, who would eat first or most, or who would be his "mate" on this or that occasion.

The common denominator in the earliest days was simply physical strength or force.  The less physically capable were compelled to submit to the wishes, or "agenda," of the more powerful.  Subsequently, other factors and influences came to temper this, as man became more civilized.

In his Comparative Legal Systems, Charles F. Andrain describes four fundamental systems of government:  Folk, Bureaucratic-Authoritarian, Reconciliation, and Mobilization.



The Folk System

As societal groups became larger, and their members more intelligent, other forms of dominance and compulsion, besides strictly brute force, emerged.  The nuclear family and extended family composed the basic elements of the assemblage, or village.  The systems that came to organize and govern these early groups are today referred to as "folk systems."  They were the dominant form of social organization prior to 3000 BC.

Higher degrees of role specialization evolved.  More specialized indstitutions began to emerge within these folk systems, dealing with intra-family and inter-family disputes, as well as problems arising from interactions with neighboring villages.  Religion and religious figures also came to be an influence over people's affairs and behaviors.



The Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Systems

Next, since rather early times, there came to exist, and subsequently further developed, groups or classes of ruling elites within the various societies, as well as within the nation-states that later resulted from them.  The status of ruling elites arose solely from brute strength in the earliest days; but later began to evolve from economic and religious foundations as well.

The powers of our ruling elites have since come to be preserved and institutionalized via the development of our bureaucratic society, and by the political processes that came into being in the various nation-states that have subsequently come into existence.  The systems governing much of society since approximately 2,000 years before Christ have thus been named "bureaucratic-authoritarian," because of their tendency to be regulated by the powerful, who created and utilized administrative bodies named "bureaucracies."  These bureaucratic bodies have been defined of late as consisting of organized groups of officials performing specialized functions according to more or less fixed rules.  They are known to commonly resort to something disdainfully referred to as "red tape"--consisting of excessive formality and ritualism of questionable necessity or utility.  This is often suspected of being but a means of obtaining blind compliance, and/or assurance of the practitioners' own continued existence.



Reconciliation Systems

The aforedescribed systems of government that had progressed thus far later came to be tempered somewhat further, by people and organizations having ideals and demands most simply described as favoring the governed.  Governments in a number of places responded to this need to somewhat thus further modify; and the resultant political systems, as thus adjusted, have been referred to as "reconciliation systems."

Consequences of such "public-induced" features have borne labels such as "freedom," "equality," "civil liberties," and "civil rights."  These concepts are of course good, and to be preferred over dictatorship.  However, good and desirable as these fruits of our progress may have become, they are nevertheless quite far from all-encompassing or otherwise completely effective.

For example, concepts like "competitive elctions" and "direct popular representation" have come to be accepted as the  epitome of government for the public good.  But it should be kept in mind that, in most instances, "elections" comprise a choice between two or three possibilities proferred by the current political establishment--in a sense, two or three of the most popular and/or acceptable candidates, in the judgment of their respective party leaders and/or party insiders--who attained their  positions via the cultivation and maintenance of the selfsame brand of popularity and maneuvering some years earlier. 

Moreover, "representation" constitutes but proposals for, and oppositions to, various issues affecting the lives and fortunes of many or all of us, in accordance with, among other things:
a.  the need to please, and to comply with the "platform" composed by the aforesaid party leadership, party strategists, and/or party insiders;
b.  the necessity of responding to the efforts of various lobbyists, and the interests and possible campagn contributions they may actually represent;
and
c.  the desire to be re-nominated and hopefully re-elected when the particular representative's term is over.

Agreed, many of the actions of our representative governments do originate from widespread public entreaties or vociferously expressed opinions.  But even so, the public decisions which will best shape and affect our lives should as well not necessarily emanate from the loudest among public outcries, or the most numerous expressions of public preference by those who are motivated and happen to be able to so register them.  And our leadership in general, which thus proceeds to determine our well-being and our fates, should not be a consequence of power, nor of competition, nor of popularity, nor of a particular instance of public agitation or outcry.

The aforesaid should not be interpreted to signal a conclusion that I am recommending a worldwide dictatorship, obsessed with objectivity, and mechanically compelled by logic.  In the past, I have described an ideal regarding the identification and formulation of policies and activities on the part of our governing entity which would be based upon "self-evident," "best," choices (with respect to efficiency and advantage, justice and beneficence).  I thereby call for the development of a system that would naturally and logically integrate true public needs--and thus naturally consequent public desires--with objectively identified and determined public requirements--which would result in naturally consequent government policies and actions.