What is the Best Form of Government?

Thursday, 6 December 2007

socialism.gifALL today’s politics and ideologies are in fact pretty new. It’s odd that we just take for granted ideas like Capitalism, Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Trades Unions, insurance, banking, and even parliaments as the norms.

However, the truth is that they are all experimental ideas — all of them are man-made, designed, thought up, devised, planned and contrived — and they are not very old, so they have not had a lot of time to iron out the wrinkles.

eastindiacompany.jpg

Although trade is as natural and as old as mankind itself, it soon became corrupted when “capital” was required to build ships for global shipping trade. “Capitalism” was born out of invention not nature — the idea being that you speculate, raise money and provide a return depending on results.

I have heard far too often that “Capitalism” is natural and intuitive when it clearly is not! Capitalism is far removed from the simple natural world of trade, and is a complex man-made system of investments and returns, of insurance against loss and damage, of stocks and shares, and of banking. As time goes on there are new complexities added — think of things like portfolios, hedging, betting against the future value of shares and earning a living entirely from “playing the markets”.

It amazes me that so many people think there is only one game, and only one set of rules, and that it is impossible to change anything (or to think up something “new”). Why just accept things as they are; after all nothing is set in stone! Realising this, are we not compelled to ask what has worked and what has not? — and what is the best form of government for now and for the future?

Surely a review is well overdue?

typicalcoalminers.jpgThis developing Capitalism was naturally the perfect model to be taken up during the Industrial Revolution of the mid-1800s as it was as perfectly suited to production as it was to trade, and it did not have any particular political or philosophical position — meaning that it was able to co-exist with government (indeed governments would gamble tax money on the free markets).

industrialplant.jpgHowever, the historical period is called a “revolution” because of the relatively sudden shift in money and power away from a traditional, natural, and organic ruling class to a new, contrived and experimental class.

Bearing in mind that an industrial world of mechanisation and mass-production is inherently a world contrived or invented — and organised by a few men, so it is no surprise that people (equally suddenly) wondered if we ought to be ruled by Capitalists as opposed to the traditional aristocratic world order.

  • As a result, all of the political parties and ideologies that we have today were dreamt up, formed, invented or created within just 50 years of the start of The Industrial Revolution.

mussolini.jpgI don’t know about you, but this brings up immediately two very scary thoughts. First that these are all just experiments — untried and untested ideas thought up in the limited minds of mere mortal men, and secondly that we have had no further new, fresh, ideologies since that time!

hammer_sickle.pngIndustrialisation and Capitalism are complex man-made messes. So are Communism and Socialism; all are experimental notions which, over time and in different places, have been adapted and corrupted — simply because they are essentially unnatural — by being the products of the human mind.

Democracy is unnatural too, and in an earlier article I explained that there is no such thing (and can be no such thing) as democracy — even though political doctrines claim democracy as fundamental. Consider this: both the Capitalist USA and the Communist USSR claimed to be founded on democracy!

When you step back and think about it, you will see that it’s layer upon layer of nonsense. Even if democracy was possible, would it be desirable? Mob rule? Seriously?

OK, so I have laboured the point: all these notions are (a) new (b) experimental (c) complicated and man-made, and (d) corrupt.

This is the point in the investigation to consider what might be an alternative. This could be a brand new idea — trouble is, I cannot think of anything at the moment. If we reject the present array of failed ideas and cannot think up anything better, we are faced with looking at the past.

What has a proven track record? What actually works? Is there a more natural form of government possible — something more sociologically sound?

When we do that, when we think hard about it, we suddenly see the horrible and glaringly obvious truth — that the only organic, natural, and true form of government is a monarchy!

Let’s face it, it has proved itself to have been the most successful method in history — and seems to work well in different cultures and different times because it is natural and organic — as opposed to being devised by a philosopher or politician.

Tprincesshis is how people have always naturally organised themselves as groups, tribes or civilisations — it is so natural that even animals do it!

Disney’s SultanEven today, children get books filled with castles, princes, princesses, sultans, emirs, chiefs, chieftans, pharaohs, and the like. Everyone instinctively knows the natural order. Who has never heard of most (if not all) of the following: Aladdin, Cinderella, Beauty and The Beast, Shrek, Star wars, Robin Hood, King Arthur and the Knights of The Round Table, Sir Lancelot, Rob Roy, The Princess Bride, St. George and The Dragon, Egyptian, Greek and Norse Mythology, Helen of Troy, Jewish and Christian Bibles, King Herod, King David, Good King Wenceslas, Old King Cole, Baron Frankenstein, Lord Snooty, All The King’s Horses and All The King’s Men, The Emperor’s New Clothes, The Grand Old Duke of York, The Black Prince, The Black Knight, The Red Baron, Bonnie Prince Charlie, Henry VIII, The Sun King, Montezuma, Geronimo, Chief Sitting Bull, Suleman The Wise, King James Bible, Catherine The Great, Charlemagne (King of the Franks and Holy Roman Emperor), Alexander The Great, Frederick the Great, Caesar, King Louis in Jungle Book, The Dauphin, William of Orange, Queen Victoria, Mary Queen of Scots, William Wallace, Marie Antoinette, Roundheads and Cavaliers, The Three Musketeers, Emperor Hirohito, The Sultan of Brunei, Princess Grace of Monaco, Princess Diana, Princess Leia and even The identical twin of King Louis XIV — The Man in The Iron mask. The list is endless — but in case you’re still not convinced about how natural and deeply ingrained the concept is, look at the two most popular, universal and long-lasting pastimes:

[Picture of The King of Spades Playing Card] [Picture of the Queen of Hearts Playing card]

In Playing Cards we see the King and Queen and the descending values, in chess we see the same thing.

[Picture of Chess pieces]

Brides want to be like “princesses” and swept away by their “prince charming”! From Disney films to Star Wars, it is evident that this is firmly in our psyche. Can this really be in dispute?

Cinderella and Prince Charming

So it is perfectly clear that the longest serving form of government throughout history is monarchy — and Imperialism. Even the Christian church refers to the “Kingdom of God”, God being on a Throne, Jesus being referred to as “Lord”, and we are his humble servants.

  • So if this form of government served us so well for so long, and if it is so natural — what happened to it? Where is it today?

Well, these two questions will now be addressed. The reason the modern world changed away from this natural Imperialism as the primary form of government is that for the USA to become a superpower, it first had to destroy Imperialism, and it was successful. Empires cover large areas, have large populations and large resources. Breaking them up would make the USA the biggest market and the dominant force. That is what happened in a nutshell:

vader.jpegTheir big chance came when the world went to war — they waited until most of the world was on the brink of collapse to enter and finish the second world war by dropping a nuclear weapon of mass destruction.

The US American sole purpose was to destroy Imperialism throughout the world — particularly the vast and dominant British and French empires — in order to take over. Is this merely my opinion or a flight of fancy on the part of my imagination? Well, I have no axe to grind, all I can suggest is that you consider the bald facts:

  • AustroHungarian FlagBefore the world wars there was The British Empire, The Japanese Empire, The Ottoman Empire, The Russian Empire, The Austro-Hungarian Empire and so forth.
  • After the world wars there were none — all were wiped out!

If you think I am exaggerating, then consider this: before the world wars the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world’s population and it covered about 36.6 million km² (14.2 million square miles) — about a quarter of Earth’s total land area! Britain as the dominant superpower had the role of global policeman, a state of affairs known as the Pax Britannica. However, after the world wars — and despite “winning” — Britain was reduced to a small country.

Ottoman Empire FlagMy goodness, these empires had been around for centuries The Ottomans from about 1300 and the British from about 1500, so it is amazing that they did not survive the world wars of the twentieth century.

The Second French Colonial Empire was the second largest after the British Empire. The French Fourth Republic was established after the world wars and struggled to hold on to its colonial empire. The First Indochina War ended in French defeat at The Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

The Second Indochina War is perhaps better known as the Viet Nam war — which was lost by the USA — and that brings me to my next point: that in getting rid of centuries of natural monarchy, aristocracy and imperialism, the world was made a worse and less stable place.

The USA gained the upper hand after the world wars, but in destroying centuries old imperialism, they left a big mess. Instead of royal marriages, natural boundaries, wars and so forth deciding territories in a sensible way, the post-imperial atlas was carved up in a hurried and careless way — which is ironic because the second world war was pretty-much caused by the messy results of the first world war.

German Empire FlagThe German Royals lost the first world war — ending the German Empire. Hitler’s Germany began by trying to gain back that which was popularly felt to rightfully belong to Germany. The ensuing empire-building and imperialist attitude of Hitler has a long tradition, even though Hitler was no monarch in the official sense — but you just have to look to Napoleon or Caesar to understand that.

So if the victors had only managed the spoils of the first world war better, we wouldn’t have had a second world war!

But lessons were not learned, and after the second world war, the losers were the imperial empires — and the way these empires were quickly carved up has created all the problems we face today.

The sudden and messy dissolution of the British Empire led to (for examples) the creation of East and West Pakistan and India , the ridiculous formation of countries in Africa, the creation of Israel in Palestine, and Communist China.

Later, the Communist experiment in the USSR suddenly dissolved to leave a lot of unstable and unfortunate Eastern Bloc states.

hiroshima.jpgWe have to admit that the last century was a disaster — it ended the only natural and successful form of government mankind has known. It contained two world wars and created the means of self-destruction and mass-destruction. All modern political ideologies were thought up, put into practice and failed.

The USA took the role of global policeman from the Brits, and they continue to fight against all forms of government that are “despotic” — they dislike emperors, kings and dictators — and as the attack on Iraq shows, they will invade and occupy a country simply to change the regime to one that they prefer. This perfectly well illustrates that humans cannot change their spots — the US Americans act exactly like an Imperial empire, but they will deny it.

The US American “Imperialism” is not merely confined to the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan — consider the centuries old tradition of Muslim versus Christian, the ancient Holy Wars (Crusades) between the Christians and Islam — and while the names may have changed (no more Holy Roman Empire, no more Ottoman Empire), some things just never really change.

  • The present century is still trying to come to terms with this denial of the natural order and the messy fall-out from the abrupt end of Global Imperialism.

thequeen.jpgThe world’s only remaining emperor is Japan’s Emperor Akihito, and there are still 29 countries in the world that have their own monarchies. However, if we include the British Monarch, — HM The Queen then there are 45 monarchies in total. The 29 are:

Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belgium, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, United Arab Emirates, and The Vatican.

Kings, Queens, Emperors, Popes, Dukes, Knights, Princes, Princesses, and Sultans — all are apparently from a time long ago, yet all of which remain in existence to this very day!

euflags.jpg

What is happening is interesting; countries are joining together — much in the way they used to throughout history when thrones were inherited or by royal marriage. To compete with the USA and rival the emerging China, an Imperial approach is required — the EU needs larger resources, larger population and larger area. The origins of civilisation are in imperial Europe — and now the European Union is growing like an empire once more.

  • This is why there are fears about the loss of sovereignty, particularly for those parts of Europe that still have a monarchy — such as Britain and Sweden.

Of course we are all going to gravitate back to natural society and government; we are inclined that way.

Instead of pillage and the “spoils of war”, we have exploitation in the form of buying up property for investment and holiday homes in the poorer countries joining this growing empire.

The EU is considering a presidency that lasts longer than a few months — and this is yet another step toward the natural order of a single leading figure — a king or emperor.

The natural order is for monarchy — and this ought to be admitted at some point. My earlier article shows how politicians are not good for us, we have too many of them and they have to think up things to do with our tax money.

shrek.jpgIn the present modern day world, I see no problem with a monarch running the country — it’s like a presidency that never ends and which is inherited — and let’s face it, who would want to mess things up for their own kids to inherit? The Commonwealth or EU could be the modern version of an Imperial Empire — something to rival Russia and China in the race to take over from the USA.

It is entirely possible to reconcile two different natural forms of government at the same time, For example, most of Europe has been governed by a monarch at the same time as deferring to The Pope in Rome, and the British Empire ran very well with an Empress and a Prime Minister leading a government.

We Brits pretend that we have a democratic system of government when we obviously don’t. The Americans are an Imperial Empire in denial. The EU is trying to be an Imperial Empire — we all need to own up, and stop the pretending.

We need to admit that all of the political doctrines and fancy philosophies have been tried and failed. It is OK to admit that we tried it, but hey, it didn’t work out.

Unless we can come up with something better, I would suggest that we revert to type — return to nature and streamline government back to a court structure. We could, of course, modernise the concept to take on board lessons learned with respect to the rights of women and children, for example.

I for one would not mind handing power over to a monarch; it’s a serious job and because it is for life, I see it as a perfect accompaniment to democratically elected representatives and advisors — a clear and incorruptible head. There is an old adage that the best leader is the one who does not seek it. Monarchy was the best way, and could perhaps once more be the Best Form of Government, and the way forward in a brave new world of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

One thing is for sure: it would end the east- west terrorism!

Advertisements

13 Responses to “What is the Best Form of Government?”


  1. “The ‘will of the people’ is … a sham. In actual fact, very little public opinion is arrived at independently, by rational application of logic to facts.

    Public opinion is controlled, directed and inflamed by the gutter press, whose content is controlled ultimately by newspaper barons belonging to the very elite that controls the country.

    “Some might say that this is the way a country must be governed – an elite who provided firm and effective leadership, and directs the public in the ways best for them.

    “Real power is still with the elites, who decide who will stand for which seats, and thus who is guaranteed to be elected via ‘safe’ seats.

    “In Britain, there is an undemocratic second chamber, the House of Lords, which is able to interfere substantially with the process of passing laws.

    “These Lords are appointed directly by the political parties. ‘True democracy’, again, is an unworkable system on the scale of a country, and we should abandon pretences at it for a more practical system”.

  2. FCB Says:

    What is the difference between a republic and a democracy?

    A republic is a nation ruled by law. The highest law in a republic is its constitution. In a republic everyone obeys the constitution.

    A democracy, on the other hand, is a nation ruled by men. The highest law in a democracy is the “Will of the People.” In a democracy, everyone obeys a man who represents the Will of the People. A man who represents the Will of the People is better known as a dictator.

    “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”- Winston Churchill

    “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

    “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States

    “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.- James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution

    “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”- John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

    “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835

  3. Truth-fool Says:

    Hitler and Stalin were rank amateurs compared to the British Empire. There’s a book so see for yourself.
    http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1674478,00.html

  4. Democritic Says:

    The most astonishing aspect of the election is its utterly undemocratic result in terms of the parliamentary balance of power. The proportion of the votes were:

    Labour 35.2 percent
    Conservatives 32.3 percent
    Lib-Dems 22 percent
    Others 16.5 percent

    This is what the number of MPs should have been – and what they are:

    Labour should be 227 but is 357
    Conservative should be 209 but is 197
    Lib-Dem should be 142 but is 62
    Others should be 68 but is 30

    Others includes the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the Northern Irish parties. The outcome is even more distorted in national terms. Overall, the Conservatives got 8,100,000 votes in England while the Labour Party got 60,000 LESS. The Tories WON England in votes cast. But they got only 193 English seats as against Labour’s 286.

    Certainly, one reason for this imbalance is that Labout has many safe seats in which there is little point in voting. A genuinly proportional system in which all votes mattered would have seen an increase in Labour votes.

    Nonetheless, the system is worse than a charade. Labour’s own proportion slumped from a low 42 per cent in 2001 to 36 per cent of the actual vote last week. Nonetheless it gained outright control of both the executive and the legislature.
    May 2005
    http://opendemocracy.typepad.com/wsf/2005/05/the_results_do_.html


  5. Having a human with law is more intelligent then picking a human without. That is civilocity verse democracy. Civilocity is the best form of government where the people watch the ruler entirely amongst their reign.

  6. Harriet Says:

    The new Spanish Revolution :http://tinyurl.com/6fwdjsd
    The race is on to find something new to replace redundant Socialism and corrupt Capitalism.

  7. unprejudiced Says:

    I like this web, good writings…Greetings from Turkey

  8. Chris Says:

    Multiple rulers is not a good thing..let there be one ruler…one king.

    Sorry I couldn’t resist posting that quote..anyway..

    I just wanted to say that for thousands of years, there was a(mostly) stable line of pharoahs in Egypt, as well as China. Both variants of monarchy produced some of the most enduring monuments and cultures.

    By contrast, Rome may have influenced the world, but it wasn’t long before its system of government logical reverted to something more akin to a monarchy than a republican.

    Even China though, had many advisors for the emperiors, and their system was very effective in caring for its citizens.

    Perhaps the old Chinese system, perhaps combined with a parliament would work, a Monarchy 2.0.

  9. BeverageGuzzler Says:

    The author of this article made some very conflicting and contradictory assertions in my opinion,one in which he stated that capitalism is not natural and intuitive, well that’s a contradiction if you claim to uphold monarchy as being the true form and ideal standard of governance,because monarchy is order and order is freedom the same thing goes with capitalism they both go hand in hand, as for that civility, let me offer you this analogy, no society can function well without proper boundaries for example, if I work real hard and save up all my money and by myself a car of my choice that vehicle then becomes my property which in itself is the very definition of capitalism, ownership of property, and sense that car would be my belonging that means I should have the say as to where and when that car is driven sense it is my property, now if someone else comes along or a bunch of people for that matter and decides to touch that belonging of mine and use it in a matter that I don’t consent to then that would be the breakdown of order because a respective boundary was violated. So you see everything has it’s place in the universe which is in and of itself “natural” for there to be such oh and another example is that car would be a brand name product right ? which is another example of ownership that is by the maker of that product. I don’t have the right nor does anyone else to use that copyrighted brand name to use it as my own and sell it now do I ? in order for that car to be made someone would’ve had to have the creative imagination to give that car it’s own name and it’s own distinctive design right ? why should’nt the person that gave that car it’s name and design get paid for their intellectual property ? (hence the word property) The very value and principle of monarchy is the fact that it is a single private owned government entity whereas a republic is owned and operated by the masses so there would be no order and no freedom because a proper boundary wouldn’t be established. So I just gave you a first and foremost example why capitalism is very much “natural” and coincides everybit with the value and principle of Monarchy as governance.

    • Bashir K Says:

      BeverageGuzzler states” monarchy is order and order is freedom the same thing goes with capitalism they both go hand in hand”. Every type of govt is order, every human activity tries to be ordered, that of itself means nothing other than humans like to have order to make sense of the world!

      Another thing, the definition of Capitalism is wrong; it does not simply refer to ownership of property, communism is more based on that notion (which is why it fails, actually). To be clear, ownership of anything is far from an absolute concept – let me give some radical examples… in some countries, and in the past, women and children were considered to be something that could be owned, and therefore traded… slaves were owned, bought and sold.

      Monarchs do not own people. People are governed, not owned, bought and sold. They contribute tax funds and obey laws, the govt at the end of the day is about bringing a focus, bringing order to a random chaos, all groups need a leader to lead, to have a vision for the future, to take responsibility for failure and so forth.

      I read this article, and was horrified at first to think of monarchy 2.0 as a viable proposition, but I really am sick of the existing choices, the media and political manipulation of everyone, the interference and degree of interference in all our lives brought that I am actually getting swayed by this idea. Like the author, I cannot think up a new way, and of all the old ideas, monarchy 2.0 seems like the best. I really don’t “get” how China can claim capitalistic communism. Weirdsville.

      And this brings me back to the silly ideas about ownership and property. If you buy a house, it is unlikely that you will have enough money, so you get a mortgage. You claim to be a home-owner, but it’s not your money. Same with the car analogy you used.

      In closing, as if I have not made the point enough already, consider ownership of a hammer, you replace the handle, then you replace the top. So what is it you supposedly own? You have replaced it entirely. If you cannot pin down what something actually is, how can you own it? Don’t give me “intellectual property”; that’s nonsense. I have 65 ideas before breakfast, but if I do nothing with them, why should I claim to own them (whatever an “ideas” is).


  10. I thing revolutionary government that depends on needs of its people is best


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: