THE ART OF GOVERNANCE.

Politics - the near, the far and the beyond.

Some notes.

1. Since time immemorial, living beings fitted in under either of two major categories, namely, the governed or the governors.
   They either belonged to the governed class or the governing class.
   All others who did not fit any of the groups, were either clustered in less important social cohorts,
   or ganged up in more specialised hegemonies, such as the outlaws, the rebels, the outcasts and the emarginated.

   Leadership skills, both intellectual and physical, were extremely expedient to identify the leaders in the multitudes.
   In the earlier civilizations, primitive criteria was often taken as a bench mark of valued standards.

   Leaders were accepted both for their prowess, their dexterity with arms, their physical strength,
   and their cunning and sometimes also for their influential lineage.

   Even the humblest of folks chose their leaders from amongst their ranks. Chosen leaders often took a
   serious stance for alertness to entrench their authority within their community.
   The more skillful and strong leaders institutionalised their anchorage within their domains
   by all the means available, regardless of the attitudes of their fellow men.

   Perhaps, that was what gave rise to the foundation of authoritative units that grew into
   powerful ruling families, with the consequential creation of feudal tenants of the supreme power within the land.
   Middle Age governance abounds in cases in point.

   The acquisition of land and other properties by operating forces of the times further grooved
   the practice of power substantiated by wealth.

   Ownership of land and its beneficiaries, the ownership of serfs and slaves, the availability of armed men,
   and so on, the list is endless, were essential for the maintenance of power and its operation.
   Examples of these principles are abundant in different places and all through the ages.

   Numbers gave strength. Hence the growth of hamlets into villages, and towns into metropolis.
   The Acropolis in Athens and the Forum in Rome, to mention but a few, are colourful examples.

   Human strength required appropriate tools to carry out the needed tasks more efficiently and more effectively.
   Both defensive tactics as well as attacking manoeuvres, therefore, demanded the availability of adequate tools.
   The strategic usefulness of weaponry became important as decades went by.

   With the passing of centuries weaponry became more sophisticated, and its lethal destruction grew
   from one strength to another.

   Strategies and subterfuges, together with large numbers of mobile forces and the employment of more
   destructive weaponry, made combat a more fearsome event. History abounds in instances that illustrate this principle.
   The element of surprise, for instance, was often a tramp card. Ancient Troy was destroyed in this manner.

   The victors and the vanquished, the predators and the victims, were often a common day occurrence.
   This is not, of course, solely relegated to past experiences. It is a perennial affair.

   However, with the passing of time, and at least in the more organised societies, community living
   became more logically set-up, and politics or the welfare of the polis , or city-state,
   took a wider perspective by the ruling groups.

   Needless to point out that the emergence of ruling leaders sheltering in groups, or political parties,
   is of more recent origin. The phenomena was more firmly grounded in European countries, many of which
   were not yet unified but fragmented in city-states.

   Though Aristotle’s “Politics” was written between the years 335 and 323 BCE, it illustrated from
   a distance the requirements that governance expected, at least in his views.

   A turning point was the development of a direct system of government as developed in ancient Greece,
   which banked on philosophies contemporaneously enunciated. A valid contrast can be discussed with
   what was the norm in ancient Rome.

   Closer to mediaeval times, the formulae adopted by the old Italian city-states are relevant practices.

   Republicanism flourished during the Renaissance.

   But the evolution of theory and practice of representative government owes its adoption to modern times.

   But, though very embarrassing and inconvenient, it must be underlined that modern politics, for better or for worse, draws enormous weight from centuries old strategies and subterfuges, albeit cropping out the brutal physical aspects that in some cases mar to-day’s relationships between countries.

   Brutal physical force has to-day been commuted into a struggle of psychological and economical warfare.
   To this can be added ethnic controversies, cultural dimensions, manifestations of beliefs, and so on.
   Though, it looks like the struggle for the expansion of frontiers is no longer a universal confrontation,
   at least in the majority of geographical boundaries, yet, given a strong enough signal, masses converge on
   the streets in no time agitated emotionally by the media, and the rule of the mobs take again a very influential
   strategic importance, if not taking direct and top rule.

   One is sometimes tempted to admit that survival of the fittest, might is right, the end justifies the means,
   captious control, only public image essential, rulers morally unbound, and so on, are still to-day's principles.

   Brings to the point of democracy based on majority rule. Does it mean that minorities have no rights ?
   Greater numbers may not always be a guarantee for correctness, or impeccable judgment. Vox populi, vox dei has been proved very wrong many times.

   Parliamentary democracies, monarchical democracies, republicanism, canton system, colony rule,
   totalitarian, dictatorial and fascist regimes, oligarchies, et al all lack some elements
   for optimum governance. Modern living in communities was instrumental in shedding some of the chains
   that are entwined with the umbilical cord, but, still not yet completely eliminated.

   It is an understatement that elections solve all the good governance problems, unless they are
   absolutely free, methodologies that are unconditionally transparent, unquestionably credible,
   and enjoy universal suffrage.

   ---

   POLITICS AT HOME.

   1. Quite reasonably one is more concerned about the politics and its dramatis
      personae in one’s own country of residence, though after globalization
      many countries have joined the global village.

   2. Ethnic feelings and their influence on a country’s party politics are best
      served by the population of every particular country. Natives serve their country
      better than an adopted outsider.

   3. More serious actions are usually taken by the population of smaller countries.
      In fact, where voting is the praxis in small countries, the percentage number
      of people who turn out to vote is exceptionally high.

   4. Party allegiances, faithfulness and devotion, sometimes do take priority.

   5. Larger countries take politics with a greater portion of casualness. We have only to evaluate voting turn-outs to realise this phenomena.

   6. But is it necessary to belong to a political party ? Different countries, depending on ethnic backgrounds, give different appraisals to this question. Whatever the degree of importance, belonging to a political party is not absolutely necessary. In fact a large portion of the electorate in most countries is referred to as floating or
      intelligent voters, because they refuse to formally register within the ranks of a particular political party.

   7. It seems that universal suffrage still enjoys widespread consensus. The clearer the transparency of the
      mechanics of the particular system, the further acceptable it becomes. The usual subterfuges and corrupt practices or electoral tricks, if you like, still permeates through the securest methodologies.

   8. Universal suffrage takes different shades in different countries, though voters militate to honour
      the basic principles. The reader is urged to further research these assertions, and to keep abreast with
      what really goes on in elections both at home and abroad.

   9. It may prove interesting to discover the distribution of interest in national and international politics
      from a demographic standpoint. How is political interest distributed among the genders, and which age cohorts
      show the greatest involvement ? The interest referred to is not the armchair type, but the hands on practice
      of political thought and participation.

   10. Even within these contexts not all democratic countries opt for identical practice. Some prefer a
       mono-party presentation to voters, others a bi-party set-up and still others a multi-party approach. Depending on
       individual ethics of the country all democratic systems may work well.

   11. Some countries opt constitutionally for a single legislative chamber, or unicameral; but others have
       two and are referred to as bicameral. The elections of candidates to sit in the legislative chambers
       are therefore of paramount importance. That is why Parliaments are considered to be the highest authority.

   12. In countries where monarchies, albeit in most cases enjoying protocol status, are part and parcel of the
       political process, the democratic business is carried out within parliamentary traditions.

   ---

   POLITICS BEYOND.

   1. Space exploration adds new dimensions to the expectations of the more progressive countries. In industrialised
      countries where scientific advancement is unlimited, governments entertain an urge for power growth. Their expectations
      are high due probably to the heavy investment that affluent societies can afford. The expense that goes into
      interplanetary exploration is indeed very exorbitant, therefore, high yields are understandably expected.
      

   2. All other countries are simply not in the race because they have neither the human and material resources
      nor the knowhow that the technologically advanced countries possess.

   3. Adding a few planets to an already prosperous empire is very tempting. They may "feel like some watchers
      of the skies, when new planets swim into their kens."

   4. Given that there are vast territories to be colonised, the question arises, "How are new planets
      and other celestial bodies to be apportioned among Earth regimes ?" Maybe a far fetched question at
      this point in time, but one that will beckon a reply in the future.

   5. Will the Earth principles, as of old, ( by conquest, by discovery, by annexation) and as described
      in the first part of this study, be the guiding rules ?

   6. But let us consider for a moment, two possible scenarios. In the first place, if Earth and its peoples
      are confirmed to be as the only source of intellectuals in existence, then it would be possible to re-enact
      all the processes of colonization of the past, and have repeat performances.

   7. However, this is not likely to be the case. It is firmly believed that the second scenario would be
      the case. Many other intellectuals, albeit of different presentations, do inhabit other spaces. This follows
      from a purely logical assumption. Considering the immensity of space, outer space and galaxies,
      it would be most irrational to conclude that minute Earth is the only source that supports life. A step further would also be admitting that such other beings might be intellectually more equipped than Earthpeople.

   8. In such a scenario the colonization rules would take a much different twist. Literature already abounds
      describing lengthy sagas underpinning interplanetary struggles, once again, banking on the survival of the fittest, on might is right, and on the end that justifies the means.

   9. We have only to wait and see. Or better still, we have only to start wracking our brains to identify
      solutions.

   Please click here to go back to my homepage - thanks.