Sept 2023
Written by Linda S Brooks
This is particularly true of democratic order, but not of Socialist systems. A political system, according to Britannica, "is the set of formal legal institutions that constitute a government or a state." It is a choice made depending on the objective of the country. Genuine Democracies are usually in the minority because socialism is easier to move into; whereas, freedom might be scary as the Europeans think of the US as barbaric. Regardless of what is reported, because a democracy demands freedom; socialism does make for a softer transition. The overriding determinant, aside from freedom, in building a democracy is economic, focused on resources in which all must be loosed from government control if democratic order is intended. The writings of Adam Smith tells us that capitalism took one century to be completely put in place; so it is not easy to accomplish this end of democratic order. Any time a government controls resources, they are a socialist system which composes the vast majority of all systems that exist in the world most likely because blending, as Schumpeter advised, has become popular among democratic states. An oddity in democratic building is Environmentalism which is a resource-not, a negative resource and an example of government hoarding putting Environmentalism on the side of socialism and anticapitalist. My perspective, because countries around the world are defining democracy according to their objectives that truly are undemocratic, I am going to bring it down to basics that cannot be overridden and still be a democracy. Moreover, as a realist, I am going to side with those politics that believe that a country has to utilize a system that meets their needs which are unchangeable.
One might ask, well then, let's make our people free even though some of our resources are still bound. It's not that simple because the people are included as a resource; that is “labor.” So you can’t set them apart from what is freed and what is not. In essence, either everything is free, some of everything is free or nothing is free. This is called a continuum meaning one thing flows into another as dynamics change determining the direction in which it goes.
Therefore, I present the Continuum of Political Systems:
Democratic Order—Socialism—Classical Socialism (Communism)
The first continuum will introduce a second:
Freedom — Authoritarianism —Dictatorships
This continuum addresses the type of structure of government.
And thirdly, another continuum is financial brackets amongst the population that will occur depending on the choice of system.
we will call this third continuum Stratification: Wealthy — Middle Class — Poor
government control the stratification balances on the Wealthy and the Poor
Government does not control the Stratification balances on the Wealthy, the Middle Class and the Poor.
A genuine democracy will always have a dominant Middle Class. This stratification is unavoidable in a capitalist state and quite basic to its model; with the understanding that a free people automatically produce a capitalist economy. if you are expecting economic equality you will be talking about communism.
We here in the United States are a bit spoiled tending to assume that all things are equal; when in fact they are not. Not every country has sufficient resources to support its population, as does the US, causing deficiencies in the ability to earn a living, If resources are limitless, the people are enabled to make a decent living; in fact, to even become wealthy. However, the fact is that not every country has unlimited resources; or it could be the case that the government hoards some resources for itself which will automatically reduce the income of the average citizen moving the curser on the continuum toward socialism and even classical socialism. Thus, because of the descrepancy between states, it is possible to give cause for War and for a different political system from that of democratic order or possibly a blended system which is not recommended because socialism, nine times out of ten, wins out in the end.
A few examples I will speak on are the experiences realized in three different countries: the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and Russia. I was invited to travel on a missionary visitation to the Philippines some years ago. The Philippines, formerly belonging to Spain, had become a territory of the US in 1898 until its independence in 1946. Marcos was the dictator, but a fair man that though the people were poor they were also free and Marcos hated the communist who were not allowed to live in the Philippines unless they were in prison. While the US held it, they focused on building education in the country with most Philippino’s educated through the first two years of college; do not assume that level to be the same as in the US rather it is more at the level of completion in High School; all things considered at that time. After a Philippine would graduate, they could find no work in their country and would have to leave going to another more developed country to get work. The second example, Saudi Arabia, which is an oil rich state; nonetheless, the vast majority of the region is, in terms of resources, a desert producing very little opportunity for work; thus, Saudi Arabia is highly socialist. Third, is Russia which I will speak on their transition from feudalism to Communism which was not their original intent; they actually thought they were a democracy; at least that is what they were working toward. What happened in Russia, was that the whole transition began with the emancipation of the Serfs into an existing economy where the resources were still under control of the government. The riots became veralent, and a major threat to the safety of the monarch’s. After the emancipation, which was considered unavoidable, their troubles only got worse; though the people were freed, resources were not. They could not make a living which lead to more riots of all kinds and factions becoming as explosive as the French Revolution giving cause for Marshall law . The compromise came with socialism, but eventually, of the authoritarian type. Lenin had first taken the country into socialism; after his death Stalin continued the transition with the commission to take the country into absolute Marxism which was communism reducing the majority of the people to abject poverty. Thus, the cause of Russia’s difficult transition into what was expected to be freedom, became an absolute dictatorship because once freed, there were no resources available though the Great Reforms had been in process; it was too little too late and they went into the depths of the non-free for the next seventy years.
What has just been described here is that the deficiency of available resources made the difference even after the people had been liberated. Thus, the model for building democratic order is to first prepare by putting the resources out there for the people to utilize. In US history, the people coming from Europe, knew how to work and the resources were available everywhere not having ever been bound. They only had to put it together and they were up and running. But that is not what happened elsewhere. One cannot turn something into that which is impossible is the point. Freedom has its mandates and outside of those parameters one has to go to a different plan. What is gained by fraudulently creating a system of government and calling it a democracy when it really is not nor can it be; only globalism and technology is their last hope; but for a country to participate in the global market they have to have something to offer and that may turn out to be their people alone. Then, democratic order may be possible if they can achieve a decent living probably through outsourcing. Thus, I will conclude with a recommendation that the US needs to back off on requiring democratization from countries that do not have the required attributes while at the same time they are in desperate trouble; rather human rights, a more approachable solution, could establish a foundation, nonetheless, for democratic order. Economic freedom is as much a part of self-determination as are other attributes of democratization and it cannot be discounted because it has a direct impact on self-determination thru empowerment. The choice of democratization dictates its purpose: to preserve freedom constrained only by equality and institutions of civilization.
Politics and Other Anomalies by Linda S Brooks. linda-brooks.com A Florida LLC FEIN 88-2001600. All Rights Reserved.