It is also possible to conclude that there may be times, places, situations where one or other system is preferred to another. But it is my view that in the vast majority of situations, a country will flourish more abundantly under a democracy than an autocracy. My primary reason for believing this is that I don’t have confidence that any person or government can know enough or be sufficiently competent to accurately and correctly control all the variables all of the time (nor indeed all of the variables at any time). Of course, neither will the population as a whole accurately or correctly control all such variables either; but it is my view that the collective work, input and approaches taken across a whole population will come up with solutions which are superior to those that a single person acting alone or with limited advisors can achieve. This perspective leads me to conclude that the primary role of a government isn’t to solve everyone’s problems (because it can’t), but to provide a framework which enables the people to solve their problems and drive their own goals.
There are a number of consequences which follow from this view of Government, and which will crop up in various blog posts, but it’s worth highlighting a couple of key points here up front.
Firstly, it follows that a larger Government isn’t necessarily a better Government – in fact the opposite is more likely to be true. For if a Government believes that its role is to solve and implement all solutions facing society then it will inevitably continue to expand, thrusting itself increasingly into each aspect of our lives. However, if a Government understands that its role is to put in place structures which empower the people to create solutions then it will avoid that temptation. But this is a two way ‘deal’, because it also requires the people to not place the expectation and demand on the Government to fix everything. Or to put it another way, as a people we can’t simultaneously demand that the Government fix all sorts of things, and also get upset when governments expand and start interfering with all aspects of our lives and decision making.
We need to be clear about what sort of ‘contract’ or relationship we have (or want to have) with our elected Government. And as voters, we can be somewhat fickle – both wanting to preserve the independence of our decision making and autonomy in life, but simultaneously holding the Government responsible for fixing any problem which arises and bailing us out of any consequences of our decision making. This is simply untenable as a proposition, but it has led to increasing bureaucracy, legislation and regulation quite naturally as successive governments have sought to put in place the means to do the things either explicitly or implicitly expected of them.
As someone who advocates for smaller government, I must therefore also advocate for the public to take on more personal responsibility for their lives, their families, their communities and their environment. I believe we’ll be a happier and more productive society as a result.
An ongoing debate within society revolves around where we draw this line between government and personal responsibility. The recent COVID pandemic was a great case in point as whole populations around the world seemed to demand that their respective governments remove their liberties and choices around the tiniest details of their lives with the quid pro quo being that the government was responsible for ensuring their protection and to be held accountable for such protection with the only variable to be measured being infection rates. It’s hardly surprising that we got the myopic response experienced in nearly every country.
The further we push down this route of demanding more and more answers and direct solutions from our governments, the more we’re asking for a dictatorship – albeit one we can vote in/out every few years.
But a second problem which follows from this trend is the increasing divisions and frictions in society. Because if we demand our governments to control and dictate ever more areas of our lives and choices, then the consequence of having a government in power which isn’t to our liking creates huge distress and upset. For whilst the government may well be doing what its support base likes, there will be large swathes of the population who fundamentally disagree, and if that government’s will is being increasingly forced on all people then the negative reaction is obvious. A clear way forward from this is to restrict a government’s reach and thereby retain personal decision making and empowerment. Naturally this doesn’t suit those who want to impose their ideology and beliefs on their fellow citizens, but for those of us who highly value personal choice and liberty, we must seek to keep a limit on the reach and control the state has.
Perhaps the key takeaway from this discussion is the reminder to challenge ourselves when we’re blaming the government or demanding something of it to ask ourselves ‘do we really believe and want the government to be controlling this aspect of our lives?’
My conclusion is that a reshaping of the relationship between the Government and the people is needed:
(1) For the Government to become such that it is trusted by the people to be acting and operating with honesty, truth and integrity for the people and their best interests (even if we disagree with the Government); and
(2) For the people to be trusted by the Government to solve their own problems and issues within the confines and framework of law and order provided by the Government.