Christian Bayley

Dennis Savill
Problems of Democracy
May 14, 2014
Government
Throughout history, society has shown a trend of attempting to organize itself. Even
looking back at the earliest groups of nomads, people have always tried to structure their daily
lives under some form of hierarchy or formal system. The reason for this, in most instances, lies
in the dichotomy of human personalities. One portion of the population needs structure in their
lives and does not mind being controlled, while the other portion of the population thrives off
of managing and leading others. In ancient history this was expressed through the formation of
tribes and more complicated hierarchies. In the present day, this trend has manifested itself in
democratic capitalism and the republic.
Politics and government have always been at the forefront of argumentation between
groups and individuals. In this area, People generally focus on the smaller issues and forget to
look at the bigger picture. In every university, high school, and coffee shop around the world,
debates take place over local politics. Simply deciding whether one is a republican or a
democrat pushes the bigger issue out of the picture. This question must be answered; what
form of government is the most advantageous to the people that live under it and how can this
question even be evaluated?
Even before history was recorded people formed into mini pseudo-governments. The
most basic of these is the strongman system of social and political hierarchy. This can be
defined as one individual or a group of individuals placing themselves on a level above others
and taking a leadership role in society. In its most basic form, this consisted of a person,
typically a male, taking lead of a small unit of people. As groups became larger and the need for
resources increased, this evolved into a similar sort of person taking lead of several families of
people. The strongman structure is the underlying principle of all forms of government. It is
essentially just basic power-based hierarchy. Foucault calls this machine the Panopticon and
describes it as the basic way in which power is transformed from an individuals influence into
an institution.
1
In any human interaction, strongman can be observed. It can be seen
throughout history all the way from tribalism to the republic. Strongman was just the first step
in a long and ever-evolving chain of power structures.
The actual value of such a simplistic system is very limited. Its first and only advantage is
that its size allows for complete and easy control of a small population. It is simple enough for
one person or a small group of people to maintain control over a few others. This kind of small
society is just a tiny dictatorship. Its disadvantage also stems from its size. In such a small
system there is no room for growth or improvement. A few people have literally no way to
gather the amount of resources that are necessary to advance or develop themselves in any
reasonable way.
The ever increasing human obsession with growth was what catalyzed the
transformation from strongman society into tribalism. Tribalism can be defined as a small to
medium sized group of people lead by a small group of people, often elders lead by a chief,

1
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon, 1977. 202.
united by a dynamic of kinship which gives people an identity and place to belong.
2

Historically, tribal societies came in several permuted varieties. The first, is a society lead by a
warlord chieftain and blurs the line between strongman and tribal structure. A leader would be
chosen based on his physical strength and ability to protect against potential threats. These
were typically the earlier and less sophisticated tribes and as they, leaders with instinct in the
area of decision making began taking leadership roles. The second kind of tribal society is that
lead by a wise chief or by a group of elders and a warring chief. This sort of system became
advantageous as the size of tribes increased and the need for a council of people to make
decisions on important issues presented itself. As tribes became more complicated, their
structure also made a shift from nomadic to settled.
In modern culture tribalism still presents itself. Political parties and racial groups are all
examples of tribes. These only serve create opposing factions of people. This separation is one
of the major roots of conflict. Once a group of people distinguishes themselves from the whole
as different or unique, war and violence ensues. Tribalism has been practiced since prehistory
and, in some isolated communities and cultural ideology, is still practiced today.
The advantages of a tribal form of government are similar to those of strongman. With
such a small group of people, the number of power interactions does not become very large so
its relatively easy to control the population. Beyond that, the practical advantages are virtually
nonexistent. In a tribal culture, the issues all precipitate from size and the very ideology of a
tribe. People have an inevitable desire for growth and in a small group are only left wanting
more. The only way a tribe can hope to function, is if its members form the tribe with the

2
Ronfeldt, David. "IN SEARCH OF HOW SOCIETIES WORK."
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2007/RAND_WR433.pdf (accessed May 15, 2014).
intention to remain small or depend on a larger group for any sort of advanced technology. The
only technologies they can hope for are rudimentary tools or ones they receive from other
groups. With this limited advancement in mind, the tribe can attempt to be successful. The very
word tribe also creates problems. The idea of a tribe is a group of people that distinguish
themselves based on a unifying characteristic. This ideology is what invents the other. When
hierarchy is coupled with factioning, a subconscious ordering of groups occurs. Naturally when
one group imagines the world, they place themselves at the top of their environment. This is
the drive for power. These thought processes are what create racism, sexism, and any other
sort of discrimination that exists.
The next system of government that was created is essentially just a larger permutation
of tribalism. Monarchy can be defined as a system of government in which ruling power and
sovereignty is held by a single individual.
3
Monarchy is by far the form of government most
prevalent throughout recorded history. The first monarchies began around three thousand
B.C.E. with the Sumerian and Egyptian cultures and were characterized by a single, often
hereditary, ruler controlling an entire nation.
4
Even early civilizations like Greece and Rome,
where modern thought was prevalent in small pockets, continued to operate under monarchy.
It remained the prevailing and preferred form of government until the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries when, through broader education as a result of literacy and the printing
press, philosophers began to challenge its cultural hold.

3
Dictionary.com. "monarchy." Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy (accessed May
15, 2014).
4
The International Commission and Association on Nobility. "Monarchy History." http://www.nobility-
association.com/monarchyhistory.htm (accessed May 15, 2014).
Multiple forms of monarchy began to evolve over time due to the varying circumstances
of different civilizations and people groups. Early on, Monarchs realized that religion was an
effective method of control. The first theocratic monarchies began in biblical times with King
David. These continued in Rome and Greece and well into the European Civilization. The
problem with theocracies lies in their potential to become extremely corrupt extremely quickly.
C.S. Lewis said, Theocracy is the worst of all possible governments. All political power is at best
a necessary evil Anything transcendental or spiritual, or even anything very strongly ethical, in
its pretensions is dangerous and encourages it to meddle with our private lives.
5
Once a ruler
can claim that they converse with a divine being, they can justify any and every action, whether
terrible or noble. They can manipulate reality based upon their whim. This type of absolute
power has empirically been shown to enable rulers to do some of the most terrible things
imaginable. The crusades, the murder of homosexuals, and 9/11 were all justified with a holy
motive.
The evils of monarchy are not just limited to the theocratic variety. The central problem
of this type of government is that it often devolves into the absolute rule of one person. Under
Louis the XIV, the stage was set for the French Revolution. It was said of his reign, The
authority of the Crown had triumphed over, without actually effacing, all rival authorities.
6
In
this insidious way, he left all remnants of the old government intact, but with their power
completely usurped and any efficacy gone. This is the trend that is seen throughout history.
Stagnant water cannot help but to become poisoned.

5
Theroux, David. "C.S. Lewis on the Evil and Corruption of Theocracy." The Beacon RSS.
http://blog.independent.org/2009/06/22/cs-lewis-on-the-evil-and-corruption-of-theocracy/ (accessed May 15,
2014).
6
Geant, A.J.. "Louis XIV." Louis XIV. http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/cmhlouis.html (accessed May
15, 2014).
Despite the blatant potential for abuse, there are a number of advantages in the way a
monarchy functions. When one person holds all of the power, this allows the country to
operate efficiently. At the kings very utterance, laws can be put in place and decisions can be
made. Without the politics, a noble and ethical king can accomplish a great deal in a limited
amount of time. Monarchies also experience a great deal of stability. A glance at the welfare of
modern constitutional monarchies proves that they experience a greater GDP and life
expectancy than their democratic or republic counterparts.
7
The day to day material comfort of
citizens in these countries is roughly 70% higher than that of their democratic neighbors.
However, the corruption, injustice, and oppression historically experienced by those living
under monarchy far outweighs the slight boosts in efficiency and stability.
Another variation on monarchy is the government of the Old Testament. In Hebrew
society, the ideal government had God as the head of state. Multiple variations of this system
were attempted, but all of them failed to create any sort of perfect society. The Hebrews tried
to keep God as their king, with judges as a sort of enforcer, but this only decayed until they
begged for monarchy. Monarchy was attempted, but the kings in power were just as corrupt as
those of the secular world. As an ideal, the Old Testament model of government sounds
perfect, but in reality it fails miserably. The theocracy of the Jewish history was about as
successful as that of any other.
The next form of monarchy is Confucianism and was practiced in China throughout its
early history. The basis for Confucian governance is having the king lead by, by personal rule,

7
Dylan, Mathews. "Shut up, royal baby haters monarchy is awesome."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/shut-up-royal-baby-haters-monarchy-is-
awesome/ (accessed May 15, 2014).
moral example, and mediation in disputes by the emperor and his officials.
8
The concept of
having a spiritually driven and moral King is similar to that of the Biblical model. The advantage
calculus for this form of government is exactly the same as those of other types of monarchy,
except for a few key differences. The existence of a bureaucracy separates power somewhat
and lessens the likelihood of abuse. However, the implementation of the Confucian principle of
harmony outweighs this. In many situations, harmony for a Confucian society would be valued
over the freedom of the people living in it. When you have an ideal king, living under a
Confucian government is pure bliss. However, when the situation becomes complicated and a
corrupt ruler is in place, the circumstances of the country shift to absolute dystopia.
The modern equivalent of monarchy is dictatorship. Dictatorship can be defined as a
system of government where political power is held by one person or party and is used against
the people in a negative way.
9
Although dictatorships have existed throughout history, the
most two most prominent examples are Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Its advantage is the
same as that of monarchy; when a good leader is in charge, good things happen. Two examples
of such a phenomena are Catherine the Great and Franklin Roosevelt. They both were leaders
with a large amount of power, but they acted in the interest of the people and did generally
good things. The problem with dictatorship is in the trend. Dictatorships are more often found
that resemble Nazi Germany than America under Roosevelt. In a system of government where
an individual or small group of individuals holds all the power, that power will be abused.

8
Columbia. "Introduction to Confucian Thought, Asia for Educators. Columbia University.
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1000bce_confucius_intro.htm (accessed May 15, 2014).


Often coupled with dictatorship, is fascism. Fascism is a system of government where
extreme nationalism flourishes and all private actions are expected to be taken in the interest
of the state.
10
It began in Italy in the 20
th
century, and spread through Europe from there.
11
The
most notable examples of fascism in recent history are Italy under Mussolini and Germany
under Hitler. The goal of a fascist government is the education of its people in a form of
extreme nationalism in order that they might be at the disposal of those of in power. The
advantage of fascist governance is that the state is at the top of the hierarchy of importance.
This leads to great leaps in the advancement of technology and economics, because the state
literally owns everything. The problems arise when this sort of nationalism starts to feed on
itself. In many instances, nationalist ideology is used by fascist regimes as a weapon. Fascism
also inevitably declines into rule by an elite. Those in charge end up taking the best for
themselves and what started out as a great ideal turns into a nightmare in reality.
The system of government most distinguishable from the rest is democracy. Democracy
is a system of government where the power of governance rests in the people through some
sort of election.
12
Its practice began in ancient Mesopotamia and was further developed by the
Greeks around the beginning of the Common Era.
13
It is one of the most advantageous systems
of government that is widely practiced today and is by far the most popular. Its positive
qualities are derived from its basis in freedom and obtaining consent from the people it

10
Library, Economy. "Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html (accessed May 15, 2014).
11
Hoffman, Stanley. "A History of Fascism, 1914-1945; Fascism: A History; Fascism: Past, Present, Future." Global.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/52139/stanley-hoffmann/a-history-of-fascism-1914-1945-fascism-a-
history-fascism-past-pr (accessed May 15, 2014).
12
Keane, John. "Democracy: A Short History." http://johnkeane.net/36/topics-of-interest/democracy-a-short-
history (accessed May 15, 2014).
13
Keane, John. "Democracy: A Short History." http://johnkeane.net/36/topics-of-interest/democracy-a-short-
history (accessed May 15, 2014).
governs. In a true democracy or republic, the people experience an enormous amount of
freedom and self-efficacy. This is a very large factor in the individuals happiness. When the
population can be directly involved in the decision making of a country, things often take a
positive direction. However there is also a flipside to the vote. As is seen all over the world
today, democracy can be taken advantage of. In some situations where the majority is simply
ignorant, decisions are made that are detrimental to the minority groups. In larger
democracies, the power often becomes concentrated. In the capitalist democracies of the west,
the power often falls into the hands of corporations and business leaders. As the size of
government increases, so too does the amount of individuals with the potential for becoming
corrupt. Once democracy hits a certain tipping point, it is almost inevitable that it will be
corrupted somehow.
By far the most radical of all system of government is anarchism. Anarchism is, The
philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory
that all forms of government rest on violenceisunnecessary.
14
Anarchism was created in
the late nineteenth century and was popularized in the early twentieth century in the United
States and Europe. It was created in reaction to the abuses of government and capitalism.
15
Its
advantages are the very things it avoids. By being the antithesis of the state, anarchist societies
can avoid all of the evils of government. Anarchists believe that the state is the root cause of all
of the worlds issues. Stateless societies can avoid the theft of taxation and the corruption that
that entails. However, anarchism begins to breakdown once any practical application of it is

14
Berkeley. "The Emma Goldman Papers Curriculum: Definition of Anarchism."
http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu/goldman/Curricula/FreeExpression/definition.html (accessed May 15, 2014).
15
Writers, Anarchist. "A Brief History of Anarchism." Anarchist Writers.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/brief-history-anarchism (accessed May 15,
observed. In anarchist societies the lack of any ruling body or person creates a power vacuum
which must be filled. This role is typically taken on by some sort of strongman, whether that be
a private military company or an individual with a lot of power. In an anarchist society there is
nothing that stops one individual from doing whatever they want, therefore it is necessary to
create what are functionally mini-states. These mini-states can take the form of neighborhood
watches or simply individuals. Regardless, anarchy is in itself both a paradox and realistically
impossible.
The last two forms of government are socialism and communism and are what many
would consider to be the most advantageous to the people that they govern. Socialism can be
defined as a society in which the distribution of goods is generally equally but is based
somewhat on the deeds of the individual.
16
Communism refers to a state of full social equality
that in its most extreme form calls for the dissolution of the individual in the community
17
The
main goal of communism is to create a society where property is nonexistent and the means of
production are owned by the people. In theory, this will lead to an equal society. Socialism and
communism have the same basic goal, but socialism is more a system of governance
functioning under capitalism, whereas communism defines the entire economy of a society.
The reason that socialism fails is that it still operates under a capitalist structure. It is
temporally preferable over communism in that it preserves the capitalist model in order to
appease its citizens, but this only serves to hurt it in the long run. While socialism does provide
a sort of safety net for its citizens and provides them with a certain level of happiness, it still

16
Networks, Discover The. Communism and Socialism."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=115&type=issue (accessed May 15, 2014).
17
Networks, Discover The. Communism and Socialism."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=115&type=issue (accessed May 15, 2014).
functions under a capitalist economy which opens it up to a number of problems include
corporatism, oligarchy, and a selfish state, to but name a few.

Even though the communist experiments of the 20
th
century failed, there is still hope for
communism. Communists in the Zizekian strain of thought believe that communism is
necessary as a kind of force to rupture the hold of capitalism on the general populations
imaginary.
18
In this way, it can useful as a tool of disruption. Communism is preferable as a
system of government in its function as a goal to strive for. A government based on equality is
highly preferable to one based on individualism, even if purely from a utilitarian sense. All
forms of government have their downsides, so why not attempt to create a society in which all
individuals are equal, or at least attempt such a feat. Equality as an ethic is preferable because
it leads to societies where everyone can be happy. A scenario where the vast majority of people
exist in the same socioeconomic position is obviously preferable to one based on oppression
and hierarchy.
Over time, government has evolved. It began with a basic understanding of power
dichotomies and transformed into the complex political systems that can be seen today.
Hopefully, if humanity is lucky, it can one day create a society based on equality where
hierarchy is minimalized and oppression is nonexistent.