I once had a conversation about the best form of government. Correction: I was a Political Science major with a concentration in political philosophy so I've had dozens of written and spoken conversations about the best form of government.
And tonight, I'd like to change my position.
I'd always argued for democracy from the Churchill-ian perspective: "It's the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Well stated. Democracy is so great because it relies to the masses to control and counter the pride, self-centeredness, and entrenchment of individual rulers (monarchs, elected officials, oligarchs, etc). From where I and you stand right now, this is a pretty good argument. Hooray for democracy.
But, in reality, there can be a better form of government.
It's dependent on a different kind of ruler. A ruler who isn't infected with pride, selfishness, faction, or any sort of fallenness at all. If you had an all-benevolent King (especially one with tremendous power) the need for checks and balances would disappear altogether.
That King could be trusted. That King would always choose right. That King would always be just, fair, and serve the best interests of the people.
That King would know who his enemies are. That King would know the best course of action to deal with them, not too harsh, not too soft, not influenced by any outside factors.
That King could reign absolutely with my wholehearted support because his choices would be undeniably Good and Right.
In my philosophical papers I always argued the need for checks and balances, separation of powers, and free elections because I worked off the assumption that men and women with bent hearts and minds were making the decisions.
But there's another King. And he's coming back.
And when he does, I won't be wearing an "I voted" sticker anymore.
0 comments:
Post a Comment