An Ideal Political System, Essay Example

The fact that humanity is inherently social means that we are also intrinsically political. Because people work together, live and die together, marry and have children together, and share a common world, it is necessary that some kind of rule of law be established in order to promote social order and safety. To contemporary minds, the word “anarchy” is equitable with lawlessness. And yet, the idea that minimalist government intrusion is the highest goal in determining a form of just government appeals to many of those who would reject the idea of anarchism as a desirable form of government. An ideal form of government for many is one where individual liberty is maximized and government oversight and regulation is kept to a minimum. The word “ideal” is very important in this context because it indicates the virtual impossibility of pragmatically implementing a government that both enhances personal liberty and remains relatively unobtrusive. If anything, history shows that individual liberty and rights are possible only through the regulation and enforcement of government, which in turn leads to an expansion ion government oversight and government power. Therefore, the ideal form of government is one that holds as its first priority the prevention of abuse of power at any level of society, which means that some form of anarchism is the best road to follow.

In regard to the American system of government, the Constitutional democracy that is indicated by the founding principles of the nation is made possible only through the establishing of a federal government to oversee the individual states. The founders of the nation understood that one of the most important principles of democracy was that governmental power had to be guarded against and that abuses of power were not exceptions to the rule, but rather the common obstacle that all institutions had to be vigilant against. In other words, the United States Constitution was designed with the idea that the people needed protection from government as much as they needed government to protect their civil rights and liberties. The system of “checks and balances” that was put into place by the founders created a separation of powers that was meant to divide the government into three arms, each with specific enumerated powers that were meant to off-set the potential abuse of power by the other two branches.

This system has resulted in one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional governmental systems in the history of the world. The safeguards envisioned by the founders to protect the ideals reflected in the Constitution have proven to be insufficient against the larger issue of corruption and greed. Due to this fact, it would seem that the liberties and rights that were envisioned by the founders are insufficiently protected by the current Constitutional democracy that is in effect in America. Additional protections against governmental abuse are not only necessary, they are indispensable. So long as the government is itself a threat to liberty, it must be regarded as having utterly failed in its functional and moral purpose. This is in some sense radical idea in an age where the purpose of government seems to be merely to perpetuate itself and the moneyed interests that so openly and casually bribe those in power to abuse government authority on behalf of a small oligarchy.

One of the key elements of the Constitutional democracy that was envisioned by the founders was the idea that the people would themselves function as a last bulwark against the erosion of liberty and rights. This is where the idea of Constitutional democracy most closely leads to the idea of anarchism. This is because the idea of the people being a safeguard against the abuse of government is, in fact, the foundation of anarchistic thought. Rather than standing for lawlessness, what anarchism really means is that government is regarded as a  necessary evil that must be viewed as a potential threat to liberty and freedom. The idea that democratic traditions begin with the people themselves is another way of saying that government is unnecessary for establishing these principles but must emerge out of them. For this to be an effective form of government, the perpetuation of government power must be kept to a minimum. The values and moral disposition of the people is, in effect, more important than any system of government that is put in place.

If the moral bearing and value system of the population is such that they value material acquisition and power more than they values the virtues of freedom and democracy then no form of government or policy or law will prove capable of ensuring a true Constitutional democracy. Similarly, if the values and moral ideals of the population are imbued with an intrinsic respect for justice and liberty, then the main obstacle to the implementation of a true democracy is the potential of abuse of government power. It is essential in an anarchistic system for the officials in government to embody the principles that are desired to maintain a maximum amount of liberty for the population. Even under an anarchistic system where authority is meant to be curbed, the “top down” influence of power still applies. If the government embodies virtuous principles, the people are more apt to embody them as well, and vice-versa.

Such a notion has much in common with certain virtues expressed in Confucianism. Although this might seem to be a surprising assertion, reference to some of the axioms about government that are in the Analects supports the idea. For example, when Confucius mentions that the only true power of governance is through righteous example rather than coercion, the end-result of this assertion is a proclamation in favor of a kind of anarchy. Keeping in mind that anarchy does not mean “lawless,” but instead means “viewing government as a potential enemy to freedom,” Confucius’s statement that “If a ruler is upright, all will go well without orders. But if he himself is not upright, even though he gives orders they will not be obeyed” (Analects, 32), offers the insight that enforcement of laws by a corrupt government is impossible. What he is saying, in effect, is that what people need from government (or leaders) more than laws and law enforcement is a sense of morality and an intact value system. If the government truly operates from principle, the people will, in effect, be “governed” or “led” in such a way as to promote a just an ordered society.

One similarity between the idea of anarchism and the concepts of government forwarded by Confucius in the Analects is the concept that government should serve the people and not the other way around. Confucius notes that the level of happiness in a given society is an indication as to how virtuous and effective the government is and also whether or not the government is serving the public welfare. He notes that “A government is good when those near are happy and those far-off are attracted” (Analects, 33). This contradicts the contemporary notions of xenophobia and distrust of immigrants. It also carries a subtle inference that the benevolence and justice ion a well-ordered society can spread beyond national borders to create a global good. This is also an anarchistic notion. In the anarchistic ideal, governments simple function as the protectors of the natural rights that belong to all of humanity regardless of race, culture, or national borders.

The one key difference between anarchism and the notions of government forwarded by Confucius is the way that leaders are viewed. In the Analects, Confucius retains a monarchal attitude, at least on the surface of his analysis. However, a close look at his words reveals that he may have been more subversive than it appears at first glance. Confucius asserts that leaders exert tremendous influence on society and that this influence is made by example. If the ruler is corrupt, the society will flounder. Therefore, leadership according to the Confucian ideal is a task that requires total commitment to the people rather than to self-service of greed. Confucius affirms this idea when he asserts that a good leader “cultivates himself so as to be able to bring comfort to the whole populace.” (Analects, 32) This statement reveals that Confucius views leaders as the servants of the population which is a actually more of an anarchistic than monarchal view.

Of course, an ideal society as envisioned through the Analects or by anarchistic philosophers is merely that: an ideal that stands as a symbolic articulation of underlying political and moral theories and principles. As such these kinds of societies are unlikely to ever be fully attained, but they are models of how an ideal political system might function. In the anarchistic model, government is viewed as a necessary evil that must be restricted in scope and power in order to stave off corruption and injustice. In the Confucian model, it is the tradition of virtue and moral uprightness that allows a collective society to function with tis leaders standing as examples of the desired virtues. In both philosophies the idea of government as a coercive or enforcing power is viewed as corrupt and dangerous. It is my personal opinion that any ideal form of government must start with this principle. Therefore any ideal government must incorporate the central tenant of anarchistic philosophy: that governments are a threat to freedom and the rights of the individual. The Constitutional democracy that is presently in place in the United States is a good example of how well-intended models of government can ultimately fail despite their design against the potential abuse of power by government

Work Cited

Confucius. The Analects. p. 20-33.