On Human Government

There are only a limited number of ways that we've come up with to govern a large group of people. There is the leadership of one person of the many. It comes under various names. It can be a dictatorship or a monarchy or even a theocracy (although in this case it's one person under a divinity). There are extremes, such as fascism on one end or totalitarianism on the other. There is leadership by a group of people. That could be an aristocracy or a parliament or a more complicated form like America's government which includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. There is democracy in which all the people govern all the people by means of a total vote. Or, we can give up control. That's called anarchy. Each form of government has its advantages and disadvantages. I'll leave you to pick out possible advantages to each (and good luck with anarchy).

As we progress in time, some of the concepts of government become more complex. Socialism and Communism, for instance, used to be interchangeable terms. Now they aren't quite synonymous. Socialism is the idea that the government manages the nation's wealth, distributing all things equally to all people. Communism is the idea that all people share all things equally -- without actual government. The way this has worked itself out, however, is to have the government own everything and distribute it ... which is actually socialism. Communism in its true form only occurs in small pockets in which a small number of people share all things in common, such as the early Church.

There are varying forms of each type of government and varying levels of success for each. Americans tend to think that democracy (which isn't quite accurate) is the best. (We're actually a Republic.) The difference between democracy and the American way is that democracy is run by the majority. In a true democracy, the minority has no protection. In a republic such as ours, there are safeguards built in to defend the concerns of the minority. In fact, in our system of government, there have been times when one person has been able to dictate to everyone else what they will do just so the rights of the one can be protected. That doesn't happen in a democracy.

The problem, of course, is that each form of government has pitfalls. We tend to forget that. In truth, each form of government has the very same pitfall. It is human-operated. You see, we can have a benevolent dictatorship in which a single, good leader can run a country well. There are biblical examples. King David and King Solomon were both benevolent kings. King David was a man after God's own heart, and the country thrived under him. But when King Solomon died, his sons did not share the same love for God, and the country split and eventually nearly vanished. Communism can work. We see that in the first Church. The primary point of the success of Communism, however, was the voluntary nature of it. When it is required, it becomes a burden. When it is voluntary, it is heroic. So it worked well when the Church was depending on God. When the Church came into her own power, it didn't work anymore. But the failure of both the benevolent dictatorship and Communism both had the same root cause -- humans.

While we arrogantly tend to think that democracy is the best form of government, we forget that democracy suffers the same peril that other forms suffer. This is why government isn't the answer to our problems. This is why our next president won't be our savior. The problem with democracy is that it is predicated on people being good people. Democracy works when the majority is not just concerned about self, but about others as well. American democracy -- our Republic -- was predicated on a high, religious morality. Think about it. Europeans came to this land and established themselves for one primary reason: religious freedom. We might laugh today at "Puritans" and their narrow moral outlook, but they and their moral influences were the original premise of our government. Voting themselves more money was unconscionable. Giving the government all power was immoral. (If you read the Constitution, you'll find that it is intended to limit government powers, not expand it.) Expecting the government to take care of them was unreasonable. The purpose of the government, from their perspective, was "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty." Somehow that has shifted to more power to the government and less liberty to the people. But, in truth, liberty to a people who cannot be trusted with it is dangerous. And that is the primary problem.

All forms of government have their good and bad points -- some more than others. The advantage, for instance, of a benevolent dictatorship is that it only requires that one person have high moral character. The disadvantage, of course, is maintaining a string of people with such character. We rarely seem to find more than one or two in a row. And we all know the problem that power tends to corrupt. The advantage of our form of government is that it is designed to look out for the minority. The disadvantage is that it leans too heavily on the morality of the majority. The next time you find yourself thinking that ours is the best government in the world, remember that it is still based on human beings. That means that it suffers from the same malady that human beings suffer -- a sin nature. And that, in the case of democracy, can be fatal.