Democracy, Dictatorship and Kingdom—and the winner is?

Democracy is hailed to be the king of governments by most who also equate it with more freedom than normally found in other government types. This is true, but generally only when a new government is started or in a small country or group where all of the people who vote know everything that is going on with what and who they are voting for.

Democracies work well when the voting people are all in the same situation and fully informed, like how a Grange in Vermont might function for the farmers that belong to it. Everyone is a farmer and everyone has the same needs, but when that scene changes and a new element is introduced with a different need, the farmer gets competition in voting for certain things dear to the farmer, but maybe not to the opposing parties. For instance, when a large company comes to a small democratically functioning farm town and brings in and hires more people than the farm population of the town, suddenly the matters put to vote are; do we want that stinky farm next to where we want to put a housing development? So, they vote on it and sooner or later the farmer has to sell out and go away. Such is the life in a democratic society where the majority rules. And this happened to a friend of mine in a small town. Now they have a shopping center and the farm once there for centuries is gone.

Two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for lunch is how some have described democracy. The conclusion is forgone in that predicament. These problems require a democracy to have a strong and fair constitution. Any democracy that is made up of different people needing different things and where voting by the majority infringes on the minority, a set of rules in the form of a indefeasible constitution and bill of rights will preclude any unfair voting practices where the majority decides to just take over and eat their minority.

A democracy can work best in an environment where the rules, the constitution and rights are so strong and so complete and encompassing that it doesn’t matter if, who or what you vote for; the rules are there for the protection of all and any leader is subject to them. Suddenly the vote becomes less important than the rules. The less leading and governing one has to do, the better the situation for all.

Democracies will morph out over time to where the people vote for their individual and personal gain. As America is experiencing with a weakened constitution and declining economy, as the populace on some form of government support is growing, when it passes the 51% mark, these recipients will vote for whoever pledges their desperately needed government assistance, regardless of how that vote puts the country in peril. They will vote this way to the alien takeover of the entire country, hoping something will save the place from their own selfish voting. Sooner or later, with the right orchestration a great democracy will fall to selfish greed of its own, ignorant voters, as in every of the examples history has to report about failed democracies.

This way of inbred selfish thinking is like bothering to eat the rest of your hot dog while falling from the top of the Empire State Building. There is very little hope that eating that dog will prevent the eminent catastrophe, but it fills the stomach, our number one concern.

Communism is a dirty word and most people don’t really understand what it is or how it works and because there are hundreds of different kinds of communism philosophies out there - we won’t even scratch into the surface of it. Communism is temporary lifeboat for a populace in trouble. It always promises more than it can ever possibly deliver and never seems to work as it was purported to for very long. Yet, people vote for it more often than not and many vote its rudiments into their quasi democratic country, not even knowing the socialism thing they want mixed into their democracy is an element of communism. Socialism and communism cross lines all over the place. When a democracy starts to go bad, it will resemble communism more so as it deteriorates. People without who want to be equal with those that have and get there without working for it, love communism. If it was all won in a fair game, then the incentive to excel and perform is quelled in an equal share for all socialistic environment.

Over the years, certain terms have become taboo, like communism, and conspiracy is another. Neither should be considered terms of the devil and rejected when they are just words to explain a thought pattern or concept.

We equate communism with dictatorships. That doesn’t have to be the case and a dictator doesn’t have to be maligned; granted they tend to be; hence the term conjures up a negative connotation. A Benevolent dictator can be a very good thing. A president of a company is essentially a dictator and so many of them have been quite benevolent and very beneficial for all, workers, customers and shareholders. An unselfish person with “good” intentions is the making of a good leader, and they are everywhere. Well, maybe not everywhere, but all over the place.

The problem with dictators is; they are made, not born and those that seem to aspire to the position tend to be the sort who are driven to these positions of power, and they can abuse the position, and often do. In some smaller countries where the dictator is known by the general populace and their families have ties that run deep, that connection to the populace, their own kind, their brethren, is the throttle that keeps them in check and in service to their people. Their ego is fulfilled with love from their people as opposed to just scads of money, which often can result in both. Few in high government who enter poor, leave poor. When I was a young lad I used to wonder at the judgement of a campaigner spending by far more money than the government job would ever be able to pay back. Well, in time I got the picture. Money wins generally and it goes to the top.

The kingdom is the mystery. So many stories about bad kings and queens that one tends to regard that form of government with disdain before even checking it out. So far, I haven’t had a lot of good to say about any of the popular government systems out there, but that will change with a thorough analysis of the kingdom concept.

The first thing I have to say about kingdoms and kings is; it is the luck of the draw as to how benevolent a king might be. If that crown prince kid grows up a brat, the country is in trouble. If the kid is cool and daddy king is kind and the queen is gentle in the child’s grooming to be king you will have the best leader possible in the world of people in high places.

Kings are not made, they are born. They don’t have to fight for their position, they get it whether they want it or not. They can reject it, but if there are no heirs to take over, then, a star is born. What the king has going for his country is; the unsavoury element in humans that drives them to power positions is not necessarily in the king who did not have to fight his way to the top. He just had to be born. He has no dead bodies to hide in his pursuit of power. As he advances into becoming a king, he gets to sit in the chair any time he wants, as long as Daddy is not sitting there, and even then, on the lap of the king, a young king to be gets the true sense of it. Try that with a democracy or dictatorship!

This gift, with proper grooming and with ties to the people, as in a small country where there are more relatives than not, a king has a family spirit and acts accordingly. If the culture where the king reigns is one of giving and watching out for each other, he will likely have that embedded in his demeanor. Of course, if the king is an egotistical monster, then anything can happen, and it does.

A good study of how a kingdom works is Tonga, the Kingdom of Tonga. I was there for 3 kings. I saw the changes that happen with each of the Kings. I have met the kings personally. I have observed the behaviour of all the king’s men, the Ministers of these kings, the people who are their subjects and I have made notes. I have seen that the personality of the king is mimicked by his Parliament and Ministers, even some of his subjects. If the king is a bit slippery and if he is a bit greedy, his government takes on the same demeanor. In the crooked kingdom Ministers will dare to go further and break the laws. Members of Parliament will engage in activities otherwise never considered and the government will even buy a wreck ferry, over pay for it and allow it to take women and children to the grave on its fourth trip. I have seen an entire country morph ugly under the rule of a like-in-kind king. At the same time, I have seen the new king in a wholly different light, and his son, his mirror of just and honorable, and both diametrically opposed manner and method to the prior king where so much Tongan pride went down the drain.

Evidence the current king of Tonga is a different man is revealed when he doesn’t even sit in the last king’s Gaudy golden throne. He walks past it in Parliament and prefers to stand. He talks of honesty, of doing the job for the Kingdom, their country, not for themselves. When gifts are offered, he returns them for the givers he says, need the gifts more so than he. When the Crown Prince is offered a new car by one of his inherited, he discovers that offer is loaded with misappropriations and he demands the correction to the core.

Long live the King.

Robert Bryce

Democracy, Dictatorship and Kingdom - and the winner is?