In a recent conversation I was asked what I thought was the best type of government. The following is what came out of my answer:
I said that the best government is the one that is inherent in the society. That is to say, the government a particular people created, on its own, reacting to its particular conditions, through centuries of work. I called this the ‘inherent government’. Each culture creates its unique form and style. For some cultures develop a government style that is very controlling, others may have no control at all. In this way, there are many forms that exist. None of these governments are ‘right’ or ‘better’ than any other style. What matters is that it is right for that particular culture.
This type of government becomes deeply rooted in the society and people. It does this because it is rooted in things such as:
- The conditions the people live under.
- The beliefs of the people.
- The culture.
- The specific way of life.
- The social structure.
- The historical circumstance of the people.
In this way, the government can become so much a part of the society that no one realizes that there is a government at all! In addition, it typically becomes an active part of society. It becomes the “way of things” and is accepted as the way things are. This makes it so that they tend to function very adequately.
Unfortunately, this form of government is very fragile and is easily altered and destroyed. It often takes only a little bit to upset it, much like the religion and way of life of primitive people. Because it is such a part of the way of life no one see’s it as an ‘entity’ in the society . . . its just there. As a result, when its threatened or undermined no one notices. But, once the damage as been done, it often cannot be revived: a people cannot revive an ‘entity’ that they have not delineated. As a result, it tends to disappear as a mist into the air. Many people, all over the world, lost their ‘inherent government’ in just this way.
Many things can undermine the ‘inherent government’. These include:
- Exposure to other people.
- Foreign ideas.
- An historical event (such as someone trying to take over).
- A change in way of life (such as climate change or crop failure).
- Being conquered by another people, of course.
Things, such as these, can easily disrupt ‘inherent government’. If these are mild enough they may only slightly alter the ‘inherent government’ and have little effect. If the are extensive enough they may destroy it. Once ‘inherent government’ is destroyed there is really only one path to take . . .
Once ‘inherent government’ is destroyed, or disrupted on a great scale, there is a tendency for any new government style to become somewhat disassociated from the people and culture. This is because the new government style becomes rooted in other things than the people and culture, such as:
- The new conditions and reality.
- The ideas and conditions of other people (such as in a takeover).
These create a situation where the government is now responding to situations other than the people or culture. In this way, the government tends to as if ‘spiral off’ into another direction which is disassociated or removed from the people and culture. In other words, it goes from ‘inherent government’ to ‘disassociated government’. Most of the governments, nowadays, are a form of ‘disassociated government’.
One of the facts that this shows is that ‘inherent government’ can only work under certain conditions. The arrival of ‘disassociated government’ often means that these conditions are no longer working or relevant. In this way, it often reveals that ‘disassociated government’ is an attempt at dealing with difficult situations and dilemma’s. As a result, ‘disassociated government’ almost always tends to involve problems, in one way or another. These may or may not be an integral part of the ‘disassociated government’. That is to say, the government may be trying to deal with a problematic situation (overpopulation) or that the government style, itself, is creating a problematic situation (a foreign imposed government style). But, almost always, there are problems with ‘disassociated government’.
The problems of ‘disassociated government’ tend to revolve around issues such as:
- The problem of control.
- The problem of fairness.
- The problem of power.
What this means is that the ‘disassociated government’ tends to revolve around these issues, predominately, which ends up altering the nature of government, how it works, what it does, how it behaves, and its belief systems. These tend to dramatically alter it from the original ‘inherent government’.
In this way, the government becomes a separate entity in the society even to the point of becoming a separate system removed from the people and culture. This separation, oftentimes, begins a movement of the government further and further from the people and culture. It can remove itself so far away that it can even become a ‘foreign entity’ within the society itself that no longer has a base in the people culture. In my opinion, this is when a government fails. It creates many problems and dilemma’s which often lead to . . .
Because of the problems associated with ‘disassociated government’ there is a tendency to try to alter or change it, in order to avoid the problems it creates. This is usually in reaction to various conflicts and crisis that have happened in society as a result of it. In some cases, these can be something like a dramatic and devastating war. In other words, a new government style is created as a reaction to specific and particular problems that the ‘disassociated government’ created. Often, this new style of government entails definite rules and regulations. These may become written down or not. In this way, the government becomes a system and a ‘systemic government’ is created. This creates what can be described as a ‘government machine’. This government style is prevalent nowadays.
‘Systemic government’ typically does not get rid of problems but it can minimize them. In some sense, a ‘systemic government’ is nothing but a ‘restrained’ and ‘restrictive’ form of government, in an attempt to minimize problems. In other words, it usually tries to restrict what it can do, often with laws, committee’s, and such, to avoid any problems.
A common misconception, it seems, is that ‘systemic government’ is a “generic answer” to all problems. In actuality, it is a reaction to very specific and particular problems. This does not, in any way, make it a “generic answer”. Typically it has to be continually updated and altered to deal with problems that come up. If it doesn’t, then it quickly falls back into ‘disassociated government’ with all its problems. Since ‘systemic government’ is a reaction and alteration of ‘disassociated government’ it is, in reality, a ‘modified disassociated government’. This means that it can very easily sink into the ‘disassociated government’ tendency and start creating the problems of ‘disassociated government’ again. This is why ‘systemic government’ has to be continually changing. In a way, that is the challenge of this type of government.
What all this means is that the problems of government are never “answered” once the ‘inherent government’, and the conditioned that support it, are lost. No government theory or idea has ever achieved an “answer” nor will one ever. Since the appearance of ‘disassociated government’, government has really become a reaction to dilemma’s and conflicts that are continually appearing in society. This reactionary quality makes it so that government is always ‘behind’ the problems, trailing behind them. The result: the existence of problems is inevitable, but they may be solved . . . or not, depending on how the government reacts. As a result, government is always in a condition where it is balancing itself on the edge of a razor blade, ready to go one way or the other.
Copyright by Mike Michelsen