Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 29, 2009 9:20:45 GMT
Social Evolution: Government
The most primitive form of government is simply bullying: the strongest rules through force of arms. This would have been adopted and used by our most primitive ancestors when the entire tribe consisted of a single family unit.
This was inevitable because humans are by nature co-operative creatures and in order to co-operate properly and fully when under threat, there needs to be someone in charge organising the rest. This, you might say, is the underlying principle of government: to provide direction and organisation where it is needed.
Humanity advanced into its tribal stage and doubtless at first the strongest would continue to rule. But with the advent of weapons technology this became increasingly untenable. Not only does skill become more important, but a knife in the back tends to negate any advantage of strength or skill, whether it's crude and made of bone or stone or not.
Accordingly, government advanced. Several new ideas would develop at about this time: the council of elders, the matriarchy (Rule by the wisest women) and the idea of separate leaders for peace and war.
All of these ideas are sound in principle. A council of elders gathers the wisest people to make a collective decision, which helps to avoid dissension and means that all decisions are properly discussed and debated before a well considered opinion is reached. A matriarchy acknowledges that the men of the tribe will be out hunting or at war a lot of the time, so has the advantages of a council of elders and adds in the naturally collaborative nature of women besides. Having separate leaders for war and peace allows for a natural divsion of duties along lines that the leaders are best suited to.
Any student of human nature will, by now, see the distinct disadvantages, I am sure, and will already know why all those systems failed in favour of the one which would dominate the world for many centuries: the warlord.
Humanity moved from the age of steadily growing tribes to the age of tribes all pressed uncomfortably close together and out of growing room, and thus to the age of war. Despite the periods of regathering strength ready for the next conflict ('peace') humanity went through many centuries of outright warfare as tribes became kingdoms and every small would-be nation must fight for its survival, facing both other tribes without and those who would create trouble within.
If one is to succeed at war, there needs to be a clear chain of command and a single designated leader who commands overall. Any deviation from this pattern ends in disaster and has done so every time. A council of any kind simply makes decisions too slowly to keep up and in a state of perpetual war a 'peace leader' is simply underfoot (Unless one is prepared to go as far as Sparta, of course, but they were rather unique).
So the age of the warlord arrived. Call him a Duke or a King or a Czar or a Boyar or a Shah or anything else, his job was always the same: conquer the enemy and avoid being conquered in turn.
For the sake of convenience and a clear chain of command, dynasties were established. It was a risky thing, being on the top of the heap, as plenty of your supposed underlings would feel they could do a far better job and if you looked weak enough your head would answer, but in an age when survival depended on strong and ruthless rule, this was not necessarily bad thing for the tribe.
Three major advances changed the world: trade, communication and education.
Tribes who traded with each other found less reason to fight. Trade was, after all, lucrative and relatively risk-free. The rise of mercantilism started to tie the economies of various tribes together to the point where they would hesitate about fighting because they had so much to lose if they did. War, after all, is often a resources grab. If you are getting the resources anyway, it makes little sense to fight. The other reasons for war are to cement or increase your own power or to destroy a threat to your borders. Trading nations may distrust each other, but wars are costly at the best of times and if neither side stands to gain anything, there's no point.
Open trade promotes peace and disincentivises war. This provides a bedrock for the evolution of governmental systems, but there still two vital components to te process we have yet to examine.
Goverment is the process of organising the people, as noted in the second paragraph. Effective organisation requires effective communication as a pre-requisite. Thus, the more effective the available communication systems, the more complex the forms of government that are enabled.
The final part of the process is likely the most obvious, but also the most important: education. A sound knowledge of why and how things are the way they are and the practicalities of government are important in anyone who wishes to run a country. There have been plenty of rulers of all types who have proved the truth of this time and again through the unmitigated disasters they have created through their lack of this knowledge.
There are two other important points with regard to education: the educated tend to feel they have a right to a say in how they are governed and those in charge are more likely to listen to them because of their education.
Indeed, the highly educated and successful (The Middle Classes) have been the chief agents of change in modern times, bringing into place a system that guarantees them governance in perpetuity rather than the Upper Classes (This would be 'Democracy').
There are a number of very interesting points regarding the evolution of governmental systems over time. The first is that the purpose of all governmental systems remains the same, regardless of type. That is, to create a framework within which the society as a whole can thrive and prosper. From the POV of the members of the govt, it has the added bonus of perpetuating rule by their families or members of their own social strata. This is why all systems of goverment are inherently corrupt and why corruption is rife in every known form of government.
Possibly the most fascinating conclusion of all, however, is that there are really no bad systems only bad governments. there are also systems that are ineffective because they occur in the wrong time or place. Modern Democracy is little more than the old Coucil of Elders given a facelift, after all. There have been many fine Kings & Queens who did their best for their people, and many incompetent, inept and corrupt democratic leaders.
Indeed, the position of any nation within the Cycle Of Civilisations is far more influential on the type of leaders it produces than the system of government. But that would be a whole other article. This one, you will doubtless be relieved to read, is now done!
***
Second in series
The most primitive form of government is simply bullying: the strongest rules through force of arms. This would have been adopted and used by our most primitive ancestors when the entire tribe consisted of a single family unit.
This was inevitable because humans are by nature co-operative creatures and in order to co-operate properly and fully when under threat, there needs to be someone in charge organising the rest. This, you might say, is the underlying principle of government: to provide direction and organisation where it is needed.
Humanity advanced into its tribal stage and doubtless at first the strongest would continue to rule. But with the advent of weapons technology this became increasingly untenable. Not only does skill become more important, but a knife in the back tends to negate any advantage of strength or skill, whether it's crude and made of bone or stone or not.
Accordingly, government advanced. Several new ideas would develop at about this time: the council of elders, the matriarchy (Rule by the wisest women) and the idea of separate leaders for peace and war.
All of these ideas are sound in principle. A council of elders gathers the wisest people to make a collective decision, which helps to avoid dissension and means that all decisions are properly discussed and debated before a well considered opinion is reached. A matriarchy acknowledges that the men of the tribe will be out hunting or at war a lot of the time, so has the advantages of a council of elders and adds in the naturally collaborative nature of women besides. Having separate leaders for war and peace allows for a natural divsion of duties along lines that the leaders are best suited to.
Any student of human nature will, by now, see the distinct disadvantages, I am sure, and will already know why all those systems failed in favour of the one which would dominate the world for many centuries: the warlord.
Humanity moved from the age of steadily growing tribes to the age of tribes all pressed uncomfortably close together and out of growing room, and thus to the age of war. Despite the periods of regathering strength ready for the next conflict ('peace') humanity went through many centuries of outright warfare as tribes became kingdoms and every small would-be nation must fight for its survival, facing both other tribes without and those who would create trouble within.
If one is to succeed at war, there needs to be a clear chain of command and a single designated leader who commands overall. Any deviation from this pattern ends in disaster and has done so every time. A council of any kind simply makes decisions too slowly to keep up and in a state of perpetual war a 'peace leader' is simply underfoot (Unless one is prepared to go as far as Sparta, of course, but they were rather unique).
So the age of the warlord arrived. Call him a Duke or a King or a Czar or a Boyar or a Shah or anything else, his job was always the same: conquer the enemy and avoid being conquered in turn.
For the sake of convenience and a clear chain of command, dynasties were established. It was a risky thing, being on the top of the heap, as plenty of your supposed underlings would feel they could do a far better job and if you looked weak enough your head would answer, but in an age when survival depended on strong and ruthless rule, this was not necessarily bad thing for the tribe.
Three major advances changed the world: trade, communication and education.
Tribes who traded with each other found less reason to fight. Trade was, after all, lucrative and relatively risk-free. The rise of mercantilism started to tie the economies of various tribes together to the point where they would hesitate about fighting because they had so much to lose if they did. War, after all, is often a resources grab. If you are getting the resources anyway, it makes little sense to fight. The other reasons for war are to cement or increase your own power or to destroy a threat to your borders. Trading nations may distrust each other, but wars are costly at the best of times and if neither side stands to gain anything, there's no point.
Open trade promotes peace and disincentivises war. This provides a bedrock for the evolution of governmental systems, but there still two vital components to te process we have yet to examine.
Goverment is the process of organising the people, as noted in the second paragraph. Effective organisation requires effective communication as a pre-requisite. Thus, the more effective the available communication systems, the more complex the forms of government that are enabled.
The final part of the process is likely the most obvious, but also the most important: education. A sound knowledge of why and how things are the way they are and the practicalities of government are important in anyone who wishes to run a country. There have been plenty of rulers of all types who have proved the truth of this time and again through the unmitigated disasters they have created through their lack of this knowledge.
There are two other important points with regard to education: the educated tend to feel they have a right to a say in how they are governed and those in charge are more likely to listen to them because of their education.
Indeed, the highly educated and successful (The Middle Classes) have been the chief agents of change in modern times, bringing into place a system that guarantees them governance in perpetuity rather than the Upper Classes (This would be 'Democracy').
There are a number of very interesting points regarding the evolution of governmental systems over time. The first is that the purpose of all governmental systems remains the same, regardless of type. That is, to create a framework within which the society as a whole can thrive and prosper. From the POV of the members of the govt, it has the added bonus of perpetuating rule by their families or members of their own social strata. This is why all systems of goverment are inherently corrupt and why corruption is rife in every known form of government.
Possibly the most fascinating conclusion of all, however, is that there are really no bad systems only bad governments. there are also systems that are ineffective because they occur in the wrong time or place. Modern Democracy is little more than the old Coucil of Elders given a facelift, after all. There have been many fine Kings & Queens who did their best for their people, and many incompetent, inept and corrupt democratic leaders.
Indeed, the position of any nation within the Cycle Of Civilisations is far more influential on the type of leaders it produces than the system of government. But that would be a whole other article. This one, you will doubtless be relieved to read, is now done!
***
Second in series
