Government Type Video

I recently watched a video on wimp.com that was most excellent. It discussed the different types of government that exist, how they come to be, and their sustainability.

The five forms of government they reduced the world to are: Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Republic, or Anarchy

I actually think this approach to government makes the most sense, as long as people don't mind including things like Nazism and Fascism within the idea of Monarchy.

Let's begin with Monarchy, the rule of one. The video immediately points out that no country, especially in the Modern Age, is ruled by a single person. Kings have their court, dictators have their councils and political party members, even Alexander the Great and Napoleon III had to deal with the subordinates views and were held subject to the whims of those closest to themselves.

It moves Monarchy into Oligarchy, the rule of the elite. We will come back to Oligarchy at the end.

Democracy is the rule of the majority. The video argues that while the majorities interests will always be served, that immediately the most important issue to consider is when the interests of the majority are not utilitarian, or the "tryanny of the majority" occurs. While it seems that surely the majority opinion cannot be unreasonable by nature of what the majority opinion signifies ("majority rule" is built into us since our very first days of which video game to play or what thing to do at recess), many modern-day Americans are convinced that somehow the interests of the people are not being served.

While I would never argue that the interests of all American people are being served at any given time, I do not find the majority rule to be tyrannical for an extended period of time. People became so upset with George Walker Bush's recent presidency that they rallied for Barack Obama and got him elected. It's likely that if Bush's presidency was mediocre, or even moderately good, there would have been a much more boring election this year than there was.

However inherent in democracy is one group ruling over another group. It's always the majority versus the minority, and while it seems to be fairest, it's possible that there is a fairer way.

Republic is next, but we'll skip that for later too.

Anarchy is of course, no government. The best governmental spectrum explores the amount of government, not how left or right they are. There is either full government, some government, or no government. Libertarians are closest to anarchists, and many modern-day social liberals are closest to fascists and authoritarian forms of government. It's pretty obvious why anarchy doesn't work, but if someone is unconvinced, I'd be more than happy to share.

So one of the main arguments of the video was that Democracy either moves to an oligarchy or a republic. The idea is that a republic is rule by law, while oligarchy is rule by the elite. Oligarchy makes law submit to the whims of whatever elite that exists, whether it be a religious sect, the majority, the political party in power, or what have you. A republic says that the laws make the people submit to itself, and that the government effectively is there to support and uphold the law, but not to change it.

I consider myself to be a classical liberal. This upholds the original liberal position, which adheres to Laissez-faire economic principles and minimal government. I consider oligarchy to be an abomination in most forms, and marginally unacceptable as a democracy. While law needs to be updated constantly, and one must take special care to ensure that laws that uphold the the absolute values of the founders of the country, I do believe that we should be subject to laws, not above the laws, like demigods.

We have taken, in the United States, the position that if we are able to convince the majority of something, it becomes correct. However there are "market failures" with this viewpoint all of the time. Think slavery, racism, sexism, unjust wars, etc. However I think the founding fathers of our country were way ahead of our time in their ideas of free speech, a fair trial, the republic, etc. Now the media has become the center stage. Instead of enticing votes by force, we entice using clever words and images, through planned speeches and television and internet events. We use subversive advertising and giant parades, public spectacle and the works. Yet we use all of this to dictate the base laws and foundation of our country.

It's scary at best. While I don't necessarily agree that democracy always will slide into either a republic or an oligarchy, I still consider it under the realm of an oligarchy with the majority being the elite. I say that because oligarchy usually indicates social caste, religious practice, wealth, or some other distinguishable trait. However in a democracy, it could definitely occur where the rule of the majority is the rule of the lowest class, the proletariat.