Authoritaniasm vs democracies,the 'king' factor in governance.

 

                                                          

The best systems of political rule combine continuity with a system of pressure let-off points to allow for public political expression. Continuity fosters stability in the society, while the pressure venting points prevent chaos which would emerge if the public didn’t have a way to vent out their combined frustrations with being governed. Such a system requires a ‘king’, to offer continuity and political institutions to allow for public political expression, as everybody likes to have a say in how they are managed. The political institutions are really in the service of the king, or figurehead, who remains the leader of the ‘kingdom’ with absolute power and authority.

A system of governance which is an administrative function of the king should be free of political interference, by being only answerable to the king, not the public or the political institutions set up by the king in his other administrative function of setting up the structures. From a society wide point of view, that system of governance is how the king fosters continuity and stability in the kingdom. Membership to the political institutions or bodies in the kingdom should be through a meritocracy, where only deserving members of the public are nominated to vie for the positions through a democratic vote of a simple majority. Thus the kingdom has a managed democracy, meaning a controlled authoritarianism ;a true democracy only favors the weak, and corrupts ruling, while an absolute authoritarianism would create so much pressure on the society as to be non-viable as a system of politics and governance.The system am describing is a combined system,with elements of both,and other elements unique to itself,like no checks on the power of the king figure. There should be terms for membership into the political structures,and a way for removal of non performing members, and a check on their power. A higher political institution should be in place to veto where needed the decisions of the rest of the political institutions, itself checked by the king.In a democratic form of government, this function is discharged by the judiciary, but in the combined system am describing, the function is ultimately done by the king, through a political body set up for the purpose. This is because the judiciary, under this system, would not be to check the power of the king but rather to serve his interests. The king’s power is checked by himself, by having him obey his own laws to foster adherence to the rule of law, and by God.

The Chinese and Russian systems of rule are good examples of a combined system of political rule, although not perfectly so.In the Chinese system, the political institutions are stronger than the king position, while in the Russian system the king position is so strong it overshadows the political institutions instead of complementing them. They however have as an important factor the king as a figurehead of the system. The Chinese system is however closest to a true combined system, as membership to the political institutions is through a meritocracy, not cronyism,like in Russia. The Russians are however not far behind, with the society having a good concept of councils, or soviets. Both societies are presently enjoying the kind of stability only a combined system can give.

The guarantors of stability in a combined system is a military loyal to the king who should enjoy great popularity in the society. This ensures that that society can continue to thrive even in the face of internal dissent or foreign interference. This ensures that the society can prosper, enjoying the benefits of stability. Unlike a dictatorship, the king must not micromanage in governance, but should wisely delegate authority,but not power, and allow the delegates to thrive, while he remains a unifying factor, and a source of authority.

A king must earn his position, and only retain it for as long as he deserves to. Being so vital in the kingdom, the public should have no say in who should be king or not, this should be a matter for high ranking members of the society like the intelligentsia or the military. Once in power,however,the king should maintain his position by rallying the public behind him, something a worthy king should have no trouble doing.

To ensure that the combined system of rule works perfectly, political institutions should serve a different yet complementary function compared to the function of leading the kingdom that the king plays. The political structures can be for issues affecting individuals at different groupings of the society level, while the governance function of the king is kingdom wide. For instance, subjects/citizens should be encouraged to form councils and committees to address issues affecting their daily life like their work, where they may form labor unions and elect officials to represent them, officials nominated based on a meritocracy by the highest political structure set by the king. The king would have a say on the nominees, while the citizens would have a say on who takes which position through a popular vote of relevant citizens. Other political institutions set up by the citizens include chambers of commerce and cartels to protect their commercial interests, religious organizations like church denominations to satisfy their religious needs ,or councils to run the affairs of their towns and so forth. At a kingdom wide level, such citizen set structures could be to manage monies allocated for public use, whereby the king has a say on how much funds to be disbursed while the subjects have a say on their use through elected officials in a council, accountable to the king, not the citizens, to safeguard the interests of his subjects. In a typical democracy, this function is done by the legislature which is one of the three arms of government. In a combined system, there cannot be a legislature, just a citizen’s set committee or council to manage the monies disbursed for public use by the king. The other function of a legislature coming up with laws would be done by the king with the help of a standing committee of nominated citizens.

To satisfy the society, in a combined system taxation is minimal or non existent, with the king providing for the public needs through monies  raised as commissions for carrying out business functions, and by carrying out profitable business for the good of the kingdom, internally or externally. The king would have full control of the money supply in the kingdom, the money being backed by a resource such as gold. Such a society is not far fetched, as any social welfare society offers great similarities in the role played by the government, while the case for government engaging in business directly is common place, except in this case the king is the government…and there is little or no taxation. Without taxation, the society would not feel the need to be represented by their own elected officials in government, and would be happy with the king. Such a society would be like  the Libya of Muamur Gadaffi.

A combined system, or you may prefer to call it a dual system of ruling and governance, where it’s headed by one individual sharing the ruling function with political structures that allow the citizens a venue for political expression, and discharging the governance function by delegating authority to an appointed(not elected) bureaucracy by himself through a unique political structure, is evident at different levels the world over. It’s arch enemy is democracy, which is currently facing an existential threat.the way to get political power should not be through a popularity contest,where an undeserving individual may win,but through appointments made through appointments by a king figure,himself justified to rule by maintaining a grip on society.this is why a democracy is the arch enemy of a combined system. Interestingly,it’s the biblical way of governing and ruling, as God would have it!

Author:Lion Mambo.