|
11-28-05
Good Ole'
Turkey day... alway enjoyed that one... but I knew that I had to come
back... its prolly a good thing... but who knows. It was good to see
my family so no complaints.
11-29-05
"Man's historical experience has been one of steady failure, and there are no grounds for supposing it will be anything else." -Nikolai Berdiaev (1874-1948)
Governments across the globe democratic, oligarchic, or autocratic in rule share a common point, they are the guiding force of the populous in which they lead. Berdieav's statement is applicable to governments for the reason that throughout history numerous governments have failed their people. Is it the fault of the system of government? Is it the fault of the economic system? Is it the greed and corruption that seeps into the workings of the government? Is failure avoidable? Optimistic views in many cases are considered lost causes, but failure, in my view, is preventable.
Failure in a government can be considered as a series of questionable decisions leading to the ultimate demise of that government. For example, China's determination to remain isolated and independent of foreign influence lead to its stability within, but was not effective in stopping external attacks, ergo the Opium Wars in the mid nineteenth century and the gains made by Japan in the first and Second World wars. These actions by foreigners prompted the majority of the Chinese people to overthrow not just their ancient form of autocratic rule, but also overthrow the Socialist Leader Chang Hi Shek, who fled to what it is now Taiwan, along with China's gold reserves. China then had a communist economy and a dictatorship of the proletariat, lead by Chairman Mao Zedong, which mostly demolished the class boundary in china, but also created another autocratic state for China. China has recently moved to a less communistic economy, but the process of selecting a leader remains very undemocratic.
Failure of the economic kind is often the biggest creator of social and societal change. Examples for this lie in Germany and even the United States, Germany in post World War One faced economic doom and the United States in the depression that started in 1929 and ended at the beginning of the next World War. Germany's Weimar Republic was not allowed to have an army above the size of one hundred thousand by detrimental the Treaty of Versailles, and the military was considered a place for unemployed youth. Also the limiting of the military size made the industry in Germany have less demand for many items that were previously in purchased, along with the value of the Deutschmark careening towards worthlessness made Germany's situation progress to almost a complete collapse of the country as a whole. With the failure of the German government to react or it was unable to legally react, with the gargantuan war reparations to France and Britain and the Treaty of Versailles limiting the production of goods, this would cause a division in Germany of beliefs to solve the problems that the country faced, the problem of what seemed to be a vicious cycle that would lead to the downfall of the country.
Germans started to form parties that would claim that they could save Germany. The Communist Party, was one of the most popular, especially after hearing that the Russians overthrew the all powerful Czar and the Conservative Party that supported the imperialist ideas. Germans faced a depression that was much like the one faced by the United States in 1929, where in the next election the government was changed, for the over a decade the control of the government rested with the Republicans, but then the crash of the market and Hoover's slow reaction prompted the people to elect a Democrat to the presidency, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A similar event happened in Germany, the country's history was altered when a leader was selected that would bring Germany out of this depression and bring hope to the German people. It happened on January 30, 1933 when President Hindenburg appointed Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler as Chancellor on January 30, 1933. It took an extreme form of government to save Germany from collapse.
Military failure by governments throughout history, have been the
most common forms of governmental change. The loss of a war, the
invasion by another country, a civil war, all of these military
disasters have contributed to the demise of governments, leaders, et
cetera. Rome had the civil war between Gaius Julius Caesar and
Gnaeus Pompeii Magnus, the two most powerful men in the Roman
Republic, the end result was a dictatorship by Caesar and the death
of Pompeii, as well as the death of the Republic. The conquest of
Britain in 1066 by William duke of Normandy changed the ways and
rule of the Saxon kings. The failure of Japan in World War Two to
win against the Allies caused the destruction of the power of the
Emperor. Military change in governments has been used since the dawn
of civilization, the Babylonians being conquered by the Assyrians,
this is the most violent change of government; democracy allows for
government to be changed, but in a nonviolent way.
11-29-05
Governments of efficiency and as an adaptive form are considered the most successful and generally excel in the world. Efficiency is reached through having a government that can cope with ever changing issues and challenges to the society that which is governed. What government would be considered successful? Should governments have to give in to change or hold on to former ideals? Which is most efficient, democratic, autocratic, or oligarchic?
The most successful governments in the world today would be the United States Form and the British Form. The United States System has the ever changing House of Representatives, it has the Senate which experiences less change, and it has the Supreme Court which rarely sees change. The Presidency or the Executive Branch sees change moderately every four to eight years. It is able to hold on to the past and adapt to the future. The British Form is riskier, in one election the entire government could theoretically be changed, the British hold a general election every five years, this includes the House of Commons and the Prime Minister. In the old version of this, the entire change would not matter, because they have a constant in the House of Lords and in the Monarchy, both of whom are in their positions for life. In its current form where the House of Lords and the Monarchy have very little real power, the British Government of today is really just undergoing constant change; however, with the terms limited to five years, the government changes not quite so fast, so it is this five year term that makes the British system so successful along with the combination of the old and the new.
Efficiency through coping with new issues is too general to describe what governments are successful. For example, The Soviet Union under the dictator Joseph Stalin coped with new issues and people who disagreed with the state by simply taking them out of the picture, gulags were the threat to all those who disagreed with the views of the communist party. Although this was a brutal and maniacal way of rule, it was efficient, the population had to agree so therefore no issues came up that the government didn't want to have to deal with. The Soviet System was harshly effective in governing, the Premier lead the country, the party acted as a legislative body, but in reality had very little, if any, real power. The USSR consisted of a huge network of bureaucratic agencies, much like China, they dominated life in Russia, bureaucracies interacted with the people on a day to day basis. If it was time to get a car, a person would have to go to the state controlled agency (by bus obviously) that distributed cars, in any color, as long as they were black. Bureaucratic dominated governments are often the least effective at the ability to cope with the demands, do to the often miscommunications among them.
It is unfortunate to say that an autocratic form of government is the most efficient. Absolute rule is form that, albeit not very stable, is very effect in a government that wants something done. This ruler is probably in that position for the rest of his/her life, so there are no worries about how many millions of people that ruler must kill before the populous starts to agree or they finally build the numbers to depose him/her. Oligarchic is the least effective, with the members of the government in small numbers, small discrepancies can turn into brutal civil war, just ask Octavian. Democracy is the safest and neither the least effective nor the most. It is also the fairest, generally, and is the most desirable by the people, so let them eat cake! (Marie Antoinette reference, look it up)
Democracies may also include some bureaucracies as well, like in the United States, just not as many as the former Soviet Republic. The United States has the welfare system and the postal system, these bureaucracies do not change with the elections, they are self sufficient and apart of a range of other bureaucracies. Bureaucracies are criticized for their often inhuman like response and consideration, the IRS in America is the most criticized for meeting the negative bureaucratic criteria. In George Orwell's 1984 the government of Oceania is a completely bureaucratic, ending in a cycle that was basically unchangeable even by the most powerful people in the government. Orwell's vision of a society like that in 1984 is perfectly feasible, but also not that easy to attain. A government would have to set up all the different departments and for it to function without a leader would be a challenge in itself. However, once achieved, that system of government would be bureaucratic perfection.
Bureaucracies are also not effective at encountering change without a very strong leader. However, in the realm of governments and democracies a strong leader is not needed to cope with change. The main objective of nearly all the governments around the world is to hold on to some of the past and still adapt to the present. What if a government was only geared towards adapting to change?
A government like this one would be able to correct itself. A government such as this will called a malleable form of government to simplify things. This in my view would be dominated by a legislature, this system shall be similar to the British parliamentary system which holds a general election every five years, it is the best example of a malleable form government. However, I would like to put that form to the extreme. The Legislature will consist of members based on population, there will be no senate or upper house to the legislature, the members shall be elected every 2 years and there will be no limit on how many times they can be elected. The Executive branch will consist of a leader who is elected every year. This would allow for constant change, but hinder projects that take time to be accomplished; furthermore, a system such as this is not that effective on a national scale. This system however would be effective at a state or local scale. There would be a term limit of ten terms to the executive branch. The executive has power over the military and will have a cabinet. The Executor of People will present the budget to the nation. The judicial branch would be made up thirteen justices, they will be appointed by the Executor of the People for a period of ten years and no longer; when a justices term ends, or a justice succumbs to an illness that prevents his/her duties, or resigns, or commits treasonous acts, or convicted of a high crime (i.e. murder) the current Executor may at which time appoint a new justice.
This malleable form of government could cope with ever changing
challenges with the most efficiency. However, this form is also
exceedingly unstable, with the only body not worried about election
being the judicial sector, the government could easily become
saturated corrupt individuals. With that said, the corrupt
individual would no longer be in government after a short time, due
to the incredibly short terms. Laws that were previously seen as
necessary could be overturned to fit more current beliefs. This form
of government is comparable the ocean, constant waves, never still,
ever changing body that can be rough at time, but oh so peaceful at
other times
|