DPRK. Does the acronym mean anything to you? How about USSR?
In both cases, the “R” in stands for “Republic.”
In case you’re unaware, the first is the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” You would most likely know it as, “North Korea.”
The other, is the now-defunct “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
Is North Korea really democratic? Maybe, maybe not.
Are either actually republics? I would argue they could at least tenuously make such a claim.
There’s an obvious question if you assume any of the above is true. It is, “Then how is being a democracy or a republic any better than any other form of government?”
My answer? Actually, neither is a form of government. Furthermore, they’re not mutually exclusive to other concepts like Communism, or Socialism.
Considering the first point though, I’m going to make an argument that will almost certainly be decried a “hot take.”
The reality is, there is only one form of government.
By name, it is “oligarchy.”
The notion this is the case will be scorned by many people—some of them supposedly well educated in the ideas of governmental structures.
I’m hoping you’ll allow me here to make my case.
To begin with, let’s consider a “boiled down” statement about what types of mechanism for people management can be counted to exist.
In my mind, there are but three, of which two are actually illusory.
The first would be anarchy.
Here’s the problem with this control component. Whether official or not, there will always be folks who “run things” in a supposed anarchy. On top of this, I truly believe the idea that “nature abhors a vacuum.” That’s true even though I cannot tell you the source of that famous concept.
The result is that even in cases where an entity “lives in” anarchy, they will tend toward some other sort of governmental edifice—often by force.
As such, even if you choose to ignore that some sort of control mechanism—sanctioned or not—exists in anarchical society, you must pretty surely agree that such a way of doing things will be in place.
The second seeming construct I’d like to consider, is that of monarchy.
Where the scale is sufficiently small, it—like anarchy—can technically be employed. But akin to how things work in a “society sans government,” there will pretty much invariably be an underlying administrative functionality.
After all, one cannot expect one’s monarch to be able to, much less actually, know all that occurs in his or her “kingdom.”
The result is simple, in both anarchy, and monarchy, you can say nobody is in charge, or a single individual is, but in both cases, where technically what you’re asserting may be true, pragmatically, it’s not really the case.
In the end then, I’m arguing for the concept that all governments—and very few societies have ever existed that didn’t (at least unofficially) instance some sort of overarching control structure, even for a limited time—have a group of people at least managing, if not actually controlling, how the denizens of that group “do business in reasonable ways.”
I would make the assertion those so acting are more or less never either the entire group, or a single individual.
The resultant outcome? It’s hard to escape the fact, that most groupings of populace, operate under oligarchical leadership.
Having already dispensed with the idea that the basic structure of those administering is oligarchy, and also having considered the concept that any basis—such as democracy, republicanism, socialism, despotism, totalitarianism, or the existence of an empire, or similar may yield either positive or negative results, I now wish to discuss which of the aforementioned is the “best of breed.”
In most—perhaps all—ruling philosophies, there’s tendency for those exerting authority, to be loathe to release it.
As a result, not only will they work to ensure you count the need for their class’s very existence to be critical, but they will also make it their priority to mark themselves the best and most apt to hold the office they find themselves occupying.
In short—considering my time to pen this is limited (and I try very hard to maintain a “low word count”)—I’ll say the following.
Under more or less no circumstance, should those in authority be allowed to sit in that seat for an indefinite period.
This means ideas like monarchy, despotism and, totalitarianism are generally impractical.
You could argue the concept of socialism can be tailored to meet this consideration. Experience shows this basically never occurs.
But what of communism? To begin with, it has practically never succeeded for long, as I said earlier, power abhors a vacuum, because of this—”real” communism being essentially anarchism in disguise—almost always collapses into at a minimum, authoritarianism, if not full on totalitarianism.
Equally importantly, most schools discussing communism state that it can more or less only come about after some sort of at least authoritarian regime has been impaneled. The upshot is that the folks trying to transition to a communist entity generally don’t ever make it past that initial phase.
All this being true, unless you have some vision of a management tool that works better about which I haven’t spoken, I would argue a Republic, with “regularly recycled leadership” is probably the best for which humanity can hope.
As a rule, the most successful method for replacement of those in charge, is some sort of regularly scheduled election-based structure.
For my money, the best in existence in the modern day, is the system currently enshrined in U. S. law (on the national level, in the U. S. Constitution).
I could go into detail why I consider that to be the case, but it would take twice the words I’ve allotted myself so to do.
Do you have any setup you would count better than the one I propose? If so, I’d love to hear it!
Thanks for taking the time to consume my little “rant.”
As is my custom, I wish you, and those about whom you care, wellness, happiness, and general health. If you, or they, are not in that place, I pray such will be the case in short order.