Governments are perhaps the most crucial of all institutions in a society. Governments organize societies by enacting legislation, deciding on funding, enacting legislation, and by regulating other institutions within the society. Over the Centuries different systems of government developed all over the world each with their own manner of decision making. Some were monarchies, in which one person held absolute power, others where direct-democracies where the citizens held political power, and various other permutations of organizational structures in between. There were also many other forms of government in between these extremes. Perhaps the most important part of organizing a government is deciding where to make the power lie. You can condense the power to one person giving them unlimited power, or you can spread the power over multiple or many people.
Each type of government has its own, pros and cons. Centralized governments like Monarchies offer less say to the citizens while the governments hold a lot of power and efficiency in the way that there is zero gridlock due to disagreement allowing them to make radical social changes in a relatively short period of time. While participatory governments like republics and democracy offer the citizens a say while the general efficiency of the government might degrade due to disagreement; furthermore these governments might actually create internal strife and political instability as different societal factions all vie for power. Every government in between have similar pros and cons and there is none that is completely flawless.
In a perfect society, I feel the government should completely represent the rights and will of the citizens to the best of its ability. It would seem that the best way to do this would be to implement a participatory democracy. Not a full participatory government, but instead possible a government similar to the American government except the house of representative would be actual members from the society randomly selected based on demographic statistics from within the state, and a federal state apparatus to mitigate decision making between local, state, and national levels. For instance, if the state population was made up of mainly Hispanics with whites coming in second I feel the state government should represent this the state government should represent this. On a national level, the representatives should be veterans of the state “House of Citizen Representatives” to ensure that they are not incompetent, but should still be based on demographics of where the population lies. I also feel that a system of state and local government referendums should be enacted, if the national government decides one thing, and there is a mass amount of outcry within a local area they should be able to change it. Off course the system of checks and balances would most likely be modified in order to ensure the efficiency of the government. Having the entire government made up of regular citizens seems very inefficient so the Senate and the executive branch would still be elected.
Aristotle agreed that the government should not be in the hands of an elite ruling class, but instead the hands of those who put in enough time and effort to participate in the government; this is a somewhat alien concept to most American citizens, since most of our government is made up of a ruling and bureaucratic elite. If the control of the government allowed the citizens to have greater say in it, I’m sure that more citizens would find more of an interest in politics and form their own opinions on issues. I feel in today’s society there are many people who feel indifferent about politics, feeling that no matter who wins it won’t make much of a difference. Many people do not even vote because they feel that their vote doesn’t matter, and with the Electoral College and such it is easy to see why. In other words, many people are so alienated from the political system that they feel there is nothing that they can do to make changes. On the other hand, many of the people who are politically active, seem to have incredibly biased and irrational political opinions; which I believe is a symptom of both political alienation and a partisan media spin that almost seems devised to create factional infighting.
However, if people were allowed and encouraged to participate I feel it would make people feel as if they are making a difference by getting involved in politics, which in turn would make them more active in their decision making and make them think more critically about the political beliefs they hold. Furthermore, when more people participate in politics, governments are more able to assess the needs of the people and satisfy them, unlike the current political structure; which more often than not, seems to satisfy the needs of the very same elites who participate in it.
Another centuries-old flaw is the levels of inequality in terms of power distribution within the United States government. Namely giving one person the status of a Figurehead rule. John Emerich Dalberg Acton is famous for his quote “Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely” and he is right in saying so, power of all kinds is an addiction once the individual finds that power can be used as a means of fulfilling their personal wants they crave more and more, the same applies to political power; we can see this in the fact that many career politicians come across as wonton narcissists that are willing to do and say anything in order to gain more political power. Giving one person an unequaled amount of power will generally lead to corruption, and at worse, it can lead to politicians placing their own desires over the needs of their citizens. This fundamental flaw has been prevalent in society for centuries, look at the lavish tombs of the pharaohs’, the massive estates of the middle age kings and nobles, and the expensive mansions of today’s power elite. All of this occurred while there were people living in impoverished conditions within the ruler’s own lands. The corruptions is palpable in today’s society just read a paper or watch the campaign ads during election season it is enough to make a founding father roll over in their grave at the spectacle that The Republic Of America has become.
Such absolute power condensed into the hands of a powerful elite can make them blind to the needs of those who they swore to represent. Because of this. I feel that in the perfect society no one person should be looked upon as an absolute ruler, and no group of people should wield an unequal amount of power. In today’s government, the president has a presidential cabinet, or basically a branch of advisors in different fields such as finance, law, trade, diplomacy/war ect. In theory, in order to become a member of this cabinet, you need to prove yourself as an authority in your respective field. If the members of the cabinet are the authority’s on the subject in which they preside like they are supposed to then it begins to seem like the actual figurehead of the president is not necessarily needed. If the power was divided up to the authorities of the subject I feel it might be an even more efficient form of government, provided that they are actual authorities in their fields. If the authority was able to focus their ability onto one specific field in which they know best, without having to worry about being preoccupied with the other the aspects of governing not related to their field might actually become more proactive in making certain decisions. It doesn’t make much sense having one man who isn’t really considered an authority in any particular field making final decisions all of the major ones.
Of course, elections will still be held and based on the popular vote on what the citizens feel the right “authoritative power” for the specific field will be. These authorities should have limited terms, but there should not be an election for all authorities at the same time because it seems that having a complete overhaul on the executive branch every 4 or 8 years could create problems. Instead, it should be staggered in such a way that a quarter of the authorities should have to run again or give away their seat (if they’ve ran the max number of turns) every two years. I feel that breaking the power-up will allow more focus on specific issues, and prevent one person from becoming too powerful and that power leading him to corrupt decisions. Furthermore, the house of representatives and the Senate could still act a system of checks and balances to prevent any single authority from gaining too much power.
I feel that a more direct democracy would be beneficial to society in many ways. Citizen participation in the government would allow the wants and needs of the citizens to be answered directly while creating more of an interest in what is actually happening in government. Eliminating a single figurehead would ensure that no one wields un-propionate power, while the elected “Authorities” replacing the executive branch would maintain that the society runs smoothly. Aside from these differences, the government would be similar to our own, the Senate and judicial branch would still exist and function the same except for maybe a few tweaks in the checks and balance system to ensure that the government is efficient without one part getting to much power. Overall, I believe that the faults in the American political system become more and more obvious each election cycle. The levels of corruption, the irrational levels of bias the media and citizens have, and the fact that the majority policy seems to benefit the financial and business elites, to me it seems that our political system has become a parody of itself. In many ways, the founding fathers envisioned a country that would represent the will of its citizens instead of a select few: however, it seems that the current reality is that the government represents the will of a select few while keeping the vast majority alienated from any kind of power what so ever. Moreover, it seems that the current political system pegs its citizens against one another across somewhat arbitrary political lines; creating meaningless political violence, ignorance, all the while preventing citizens from playing a meaningful role in the political decision making that affects their lives.
