I intend to explore what is going on in government and in democracy in particular. I come from the standpoint that behind everything is a desire for power, that that drive over-rides everything else, and is, in fact, incompatible with good government. In other words, a system of government that is designed to satisfy the desire for power of those who are doing the governing cannot also serve the needs of those who are governed.
If one reads our history books they are full of admiration for power and powerful people. One reads of Alexander the Great as though he was an admirable man; and one read that the Roman Empire brought peace to the lands it ruled besides much else with no suggestion (or only the very occasional suggestion: one Roman wrote, "they create desolation and call it peace") that it might actually, by virtue of being an empire, be 'evil', an abomination; one reads of this or that monarch or ruler who was wonderful because under their rule the country expanded its borders, became a 'world power' etc etc. The old saying, 'power corrupts' holds no sway. It is as though a ruler who has a lust for power can also have the best interests of his subjects at heart, or, at least, that the lust for power and any corruption caused thereby does not actually render the leader unfit for office. My contention is that it does. A lust for power does render a person unfit to rule.
Let's go back to the beginning of democracy, to ancient Athens. It is, of course, a world of people manoeuvring for power. It is not a case of: I would like that job because I am interested in government, or in trading or estate management. The genesis for everything is, 'I want power'. So, for example, someone becomes king, not because people NEED a king, but because people want power, and the one that becomes king is, one way or another, the most powerful around at the time.
Of course, that means that government was not invented because it was needed, but because it satisfied the lust for power, so it leaves open the whole question as to whether we do actually need any government at all. Government has been around for so long that we take its need for granted; use and old age have accustomed us to the bars of our cages, but government, any government, is an infringement of people's freedom. 'Government' and 'freedom' are contradictory terms. And like anyone who has been confined to an institution for a lengthy period of time, we learn to fear freedom.
We see bogies in the form of thugs, murderers, thieves and all the rest of the 'criminals' that are normally held in check, supposedly, by the forces of law and order. We see people running amok if the shackles of government are sloughed off --- anarchy never caught on in a big way and has even become synonymous with chaos. We read books like Lord of the Flies and suppose that that shows us what would happen if the 'veneer of civilisation' were lost. And this is supposedly down to things that are inherent in human nature…… but is it? I suggest that human beings are perfectly capable of living in peace and harmony. The problem is not human nature; the problem is power. Human nature only comes into it in so far as people are susceptible to the lure of power; they become ADDICTED to it. But you do not say to a drug addict that they should build their life around their addiction; you tell them they should mend their ways. Addiction is simply too damaging.
So to return to ancient Athens and the other city states of ancient Greece. They had a variety of forms of government. There were kings and tyrants and rule by an aristocratic elite. Why one form of government rather than another? I think that probably comes down to: there are as many different forms of government as there are ways of gaining power.
One might have power on the basis of physical prowess. A strong and intimidating warrior can take control, and if he is seen as powerful by other warriors such that they can partake of some of his power by allying themselves to him, then they will do so and he will gain more power by being backed by a warrior elite.
Some might argue that in a world of jostling for position and power one needs to have a strong leader who is not afraid to 'fight for his people'. One might equally say that such a leader is going to be one of the ones that ensure that the culture of the world is 'jostling for position and power'. Once a warrior has gained control of one city or state, if he has a lust for power, he is not going to stop there. He is going to develop ambitions to take over and rule the next-door state.
If he is ruler of a warrior state (i.e. they are all at it, all addicted to power.) that may be no problem, but if he rules a state that is more concerned to live at peace with its neighbours, then there are plenty of ways of fomenting trouble, and he will do so. If he is powerful enough, and backed by a powerful elite, then he might just go ahead and attack the neighbours, but if some of his peace-loving subjects have significant power of their own, then he will use subterfuge. In extreme cases he may need to turn the whole thing around and use lies and propaganda to make out that it is the neighbour that is the aggressor, and his people are just lucky they have him at the helm to defend them!
But here I'm talking about a ruler who is having to consider his people, having to manipulate them in order to get them to back him in his latest bid for more power. This begins to sound like something that is approaching democracy. Basically, if a ruler has enough strength, either through his own warrior abilities, or because of wealth and possessions (if you control the resources such that others depend on you……) then he does not need to consult anyone, or consider anyone's opinion on anything; you can just do whatever you want to do – like going off on a 3 year conquering spree.
But if a ruler has less power, then he will have to make a show of listening to the people --- but it will be just show. Power is not about listening to people and doing what they want, it is about CONTROLLING people.
Or, if the rulers have power enough to go their own way without consultation, then those among the ruled who would rather rule need to find some way of challenging the ruler, some other power base. An organisation like the church can do that, but it took the Christian Church a long time to acquire enough power to challenge secular rulers. Having said which, people can be 'inspired' in large numbers to follow a leader who can be of humble origin.
But let's think Athens, a city of philosophers as well as merchants and estate owners etc. Among the main schools of philosophy at the time was that of the Sophists, travelling teachers who taught people how to win law suits and such. They were into rhetoric and, basically, all the means that can be used to manipulate people. It must have been inevitable that someone spotted the possibility of persuading the 'people' that their own best interests would be served by backing his bid for power.
He does not have to think of women and slaves at this point; only about people that 'matter'. He has to 'buy' the people with promises that he will 'share' power with them. He will listen to them, and even allow them to vote on policies, he says. He may have to create an opportunity for any of them to get a chance at becoming top-dog, and could do so by limiting his time in office. We'll have a general election every 2 years and any of you can stand for election, he promises --- promises, promises. Well, 2 years of power is better than none, and, anyway, the important thing is to get into power and then, maybe, one can change things, maybe do away with elections……so now we have a democracy, and it was born as a means to power, NOT as a means to empower the people.
In fact, empowering the people is precisely the OPPOSITE of what it is about. FREEDOM is precisely the opposite of what it is about. It is about CONTROLLING the people. The people are a power base and are to be used to that end. That is democracy.
