Governance
“One of the major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather who manages to get people to let them do it to them“(Adams). In other words a good leader not only has to be a leader of men but also someone that the men he or she should lead will want to be led by such a man. The definition of what a good ruler is and is it possible to have a ruler that is not there for his personal gain.
“Be gentle and you can be bold; be frugal and you can be liberal; avoid putting yourself before others and you can become a leader among men”. (Loa Tzu) These words seem to be analogous with what Douglas Adams was trying to say. A good leader of people is someone that puts others before himself, today this is not the practice of rulers and looking through history at even the greatest rulers of all times you can see that they too put themselves first. Anyone that put others before themselves usually ended up martyred. A perfect example of this would be what we historically know about Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, Spartacus, and many, more.
In the United States we have a democracy but many countries go about “choosing” who will rule them is vastly different from ours. In china for instance the leader is elected similar to ours however their right to vote is much more lenient the our own, for instance many criminals are allowed to vote and the laws of china in regards to voting are federal and not state unlike our own, where the right to vote is determined by each state independently.
Many countries leaders come to power through military coupe, or through a monarchist system. The ways we choose are leaders are nearly infinite. Up to now I have not heard of a perfect electoral system, I certainly do not believe one would come into existence in my lifetime.
Is it possible to find a “good” leader? A democratic approach does not seem to be the optimal means or the most efficient way to elect a leader. In ancient china the “cabinet” was chosen by scholarship, though the leader’s were blood relatives in dynasties the advisers to the leaders were scholars, there were many tests done to see who was most qualified in the country. This maybe an approach that may truly show the most qualified. With modern research in psychology and sociology advancing as it has this form of leader appointment may be the way of the future or at least the best way of picking a qualified leader. Things to look at would be how to get everyone to test for it and how to get the most qualified leaders to lead after being chosen.
Today in the United States we have a president that spent 4 years leading the country with a lower then 50% approval rating but when his term was up the majority of the United States citizens re-elected him by 2%. Though in our country a president can be elected with less then a 48% majority, our current president was able to actually get a true majority and in our Democracy that is considered a landslide, but how could someone with less the 50% popularity be elected? (CNN during election) There was no better candidate; I base this off of the numbers and not my own opinion. Currently if a president is elected with only 2% more then half of the citizens in the United States there is something wrong with our system. There needs to be a way to find leaders of our country that more people can approve of. Not more then half but rather a true majority.
Unfortunately without military coupe or some other ghastly approach to reform, it will be a slow process and more people will have to take action with their votes and voices. The individual approach people take when voting and their actions in politics seem to show that they may not believe that there voices or actions are heard. This view point must change.
Though there are hundreds of millions of people in the United States most elections between to mediocre candidates still pulls many people to the polls. Yet the elections are often very close and require many recounts, this shows that a few hundred people who do not think they make a difference can thorouly tilt the balance from one side to another. For instance in 2004 in Washington State the total difference of votes for the two candidates for governor was very slight, so slight in fact that the counting had to be several times and took months to tally after the election was over. Had a thousand of the people that chose not to vote in that particular election shown up at the polls the election could have taken a drastic turn one way or the other.
I do not believe that such things and total reform and revolution will come about in my life time, I believe as the human society evolves and globalizes, we will be creating new and better governments and election processes and though not in my lifetime a true government for the people of the people will be seen in our not so distant future.
“Be gentle and you can be bold; be frugal and you can be liberal; avoid putting yourself before others and you can become a leader among men”. (Loa Tzu) These words seem to be analogous with what Douglas Adams was trying to say. A good leader of people is someone that puts others before himself, today this is not the practice of rulers and looking through history at even the greatest rulers of all times you can see that they too put themselves first. Anyone that put others before themselves usually ended up martyred. A perfect example of this would be what we historically know about Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, Spartacus, and many, more.
In the United States we have a democracy but many countries go about “choosing” who will rule them is vastly different from ours. In china for instance the leader is elected similar to ours however their right to vote is much more lenient the our own, for instance many criminals are allowed to vote and the laws of china in regards to voting are federal and not state unlike our own, where the right to vote is determined by each state independently.
Many countries leaders come to power through military coupe, or through a monarchist system. The ways we choose are leaders are nearly infinite. Up to now I have not heard of a perfect electoral system, I certainly do not believe one would come into existence in my lifetime.
Is it possible to find a “good” leader? A democratic approach does not seem to be the optimal means or the most efficient way to elect a leader. In ancient china the “cabinet” was chosen by scholarship, though the leader’s were blood relatives in dynasties the advisers to the leaders were scholars, there were many tests done to see who was most qualified in the country. This maybe an approach that may truly show the most qualified. With modern research in psychology and sociology advancing as it has this form of leader appointment may be the way of the future or at least the best way of picking a qualified leader. Things to look at would be how to get everyone to test for it and how to get the most qualified leaders to lead after being chosen.
Today in the United States we have a president that spent 4 years leading the country with a lower then 50% approval rating but when his term was up the majority of the United States citizens re-elected him by 2%. Though in our country a president can be elected with less then a 48% majority, our current president was able to actually get a true majority and in our Democracy that is considered a landslide, but how could someone with less the 50% popularity be elected? (CNN during election) There was no better candidate; I base this off of the numbers and not my own opinion. Currently if a president is elected with only 2% more then half of the citizens in the United States there is something wrong with our system. There needs to be a way to find leaders of our country that more people can approve of. Not more then half but rather a true majority.
Unfortunately without military coupe or some other ghastly approach to reform, it will be a slow process and more people will have to take action with their votes and voices. The individual approach people take when voting and their actions in politics seem to show that they may not believe that there voices or actions are heard. This view point must change.
Though there are hundreds of millions of people in the United States most elections between to mediocre candidates still pulls many people to the polls. Yet the elections are often very close and require many recounts, this shows that a few hundred people who do not think they make a difference can thorouly tilt the balance from one side to another. For instance in 2004 in Washington State the total difference of votes for the two candidates for governor was very slight, so slight in fact that the counting had to be several times and took months to tally after the election was over. Had a thousand of the people that chose not to vote in that particular election shown up at the polls the election could have taken a drastic turn one way or the other.
I do not believe that such things and total reform and revolution will come about in my life time, I believe as the human society evolves and globalizes, we will be creating new and better governments and election processes and though not in my lifetime a true government for the people of the people will be seen in our not so distant future.
posted by SiN at 8:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home