Although I personally feel that there is not a feasibly possible form of government that can both please society and maintain complete functionality, I believe the the closest you could get would be a limited monarchy with a democratic style. It sounds quite twisted, and quite controversial, but hear me out. After doing the Utopia project, it really showed the type of defaults in certain forms of government, and the problems that have risen time after time with the different types. With governments such as a dictatorship, the leader is too dominant - he has unlimited power, which in most cases through history is consistently abused. They have the power to make their own rules and then have people enforce the rules for them, essentially becoming laws. The people had no say whatsoever. On the other hand, if you go with a style such as Montesquieu suggested, it would prevent that by dividing the power to make, interpret, and enforce the laws. This would prevent the leader of the government from gaining too much say in how things could be. The only downside of this is that many people say he offends human rights, as he believes men hold a higher potential over women and that the practice of slavery should be upheld. In that sense, one might argue that there should be a much higher level of freedom and tolerance. One such person might be Aristotle, having one of the most "free" senses of government. He once stated, "Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy." Therefore, despite his optimistic virtues, he himself even knew his view had many downfalls, as he expected humans to go outside of human nature and consistently work together in a rational manner. He acknowledged that fact that there are always the extremists who will break that code, and challenge that freedom just for their own, possibly unexplainable motives. In this case, although a system with such freedom would work ideally in a fictional world, it is too easy for the few to destroy it and ruin it for the many. So, based off the past observations, although these great historians and scholars all have great ideas, they fail to come to a conclusion.
If there were to be an ideal form in today's imperfect world, I strongly believe that, as mentioned above, it would need to be a new derivative of a limited monarchy - but in this case, mixed with a democracy. The side dealing with the monarchy would allow one leader to take a heavy role in leading the country, being elected by the nation rather than inherited by blood or family status (hence the democratic side). This would allow the people to have their say in the government, as they should. In any case, a nation is not a nation unless its people are at its core. On the other hand though, giving such a heavy amount of power to the nations leader would allow him or her to make undisputed decisions, which would allow the nation to act fast in tight situations. Also, it would simply reduce conflict in the government by eliminating the "two-sided government" that often leads into a nation simply fighting itself (Obamacare crisis). Furthermore, questions arise such as what happens if the leader abuses his power, or in what state would the nation be if it were to lose its leader to death/assassination in time of a national crisis? In this case, that's the very reason this form of government has the words "limited" and "democratic" in its title. The government would have a Cabinet to it, consisting of 100 members from throughout the nation (similar to the Senate). They would be re-elected every 3 years and could serve a maximum of three terms. This Cabinet would be like the security net of the nation for when there was a crisis, aiding the monarch with whatever means necessary. They also support the leader in terms of carrying out the laws and orders for him or her. If the leader were to be killed, the Cabinet would take a very short, temporary control over the nation. This nation would be then put under the power of the next monarch/potential leader, belonging to the Subset. The Subset would be a council of 10 leaders elected by the nation, refreshed annually to keep the Subset up-to-date with leaders that the people wanted. They would be placed chronologically based on the number of votes they received, therefore determining who would take the previous monarch's power in case of an incident. The Subset, like the Cabinet, is allowed to advise and work with the monarch, but unlike the Cabinet they have no legitimate power in the nation. Furthermore, another special power given to the people is the ability to remove the monarch from power at any given time as long as there is a majority rule against him or her addressing the entirety of the nation. This would prevent the monarchy from turning into a dictatorship and would uphold the needs and desires of the society and their preferred ways/choice of leaders. Therefore, the monarch has the right to rule for unlimited time until either death or removal from power by the people. Simply put, this allows a successful monarch to keep ruling as long as the nation is pleased. Overall, it is a very simplified form of government that allows for less conflicted decisions, a peoples' vote, and a security branch of the government to give it the slightest bit of security and support that it needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment