I think that no government system is absolutely ideal for every given population because each of the major ideals have always had as many advantages as disadvantages. Imagine, for instance, if China had never selected communism and instead embraced the republican ideal of the U.S.. What would have been the likelihood for the status for America’s success to date? With China having nearly a third of the world’s population, I’m guessing that they would be much more powerful than the U.S..
I’d like to point out how Communism was formed and meant to be. Communism as a theory proposed by Marx was meant to provide a means for everyone to succeed without prejudice. In his day, however, the realities of the contemporary governments that any one were familiar with always had a person who represented its sovereignty. For the most part, they were Kings and Queens. These monarchs were virtual dictators even if they chose not to participate in the ever-growing aristocratic representatives of the Commoners. Canada, even to this day, officially recognizes the Queen as our sovereign leader. On all bills passed, they go through the Common House (same as the Representative House), the Senate (We follow the traditional European concept of this: those who are selected by the convening governments that appoint them for life. Why? Senators were considered the House of the old wise men [now women too] that came from our tribal days..) and, the final vote or rather, veto, goes to the Queen. Again, even thought the Queen doesn’t actually involve herself in politics, we keep this tradition even though it is possible for her to literally deny our laws. It is only custom that presumes that she or any other future Monarch will actually ever use their privilege. If they did, we’d find a reason to abandon the Monarch and become a republic, like the States.
It was in this light that Marx felt a leader was necessary for Communism. Communism was not, nor ever has been achieved except in religious groups like the Amish Communities. Communism was understood to be an ideal state or goal that the society should aim for. The problem was that it didn’t seem to be able to be possible to set the stage for a world where everyone was equally important and shared their wealth. This was because in order to do so, those who already hold ownership privileges would not naturally just give up what they already have. Marx suggested that the only way this could be possible would be to revolt.
Unfortunately, it was believed that since people cling to religious authority (the same context that provides trust in Monarchs and Popes), this loss would also impede the success of the Communist dream. So Marx proposed a leader who represents the Communist ideal should be required to initiate the first stages. They act, to them, as a Constitution protector to assure that no other form of government dissolves the intended goal. To us, we were always told that the present “Communist” governments were dictators. The actual Communists see this differently.
In fact, they consider themselves a type of democracy because all effective government who makes the actual laws outside the constitution itself is voted on. But they do not vote particular people in by our simple polling systems that appear to involve everyone. They do it through logical groups such as a type of industry or special interest. They do this because everyone as a whole is not sufficiently qualified to determine the virtues of any given government position. For example, if it was required to have a food health inspector, only people within that industry vote initially. If you worked as a cook in some given restaurant, because it is not owned by any individuals, the staff themselves would elect one of them (vote) to represent their interests. Then the collection of representatives from those industries in turn go to another group or convention to discuss the issues and they, in turn, vote one of them who seems to represent the consensus of the group best. This process continues all the way up to any necessary position in government.
As you can well see, this is certainly a closer and more involved government than our forms. They perceive us as Imperialists because, as the name implies, it says that we believe that real human individuals actually have innate rights to ownership and inheritance without regards to any disadvantages to the public. To them, even the republican form of government has not dissolved a belief that their leader is sovereign, like a King Queen, or God, even if when they are elected.
Republicanism was an alternate idea that was equally meant to provide similar goals as the Communist ones. The idea was actually the inspiration of Plato’s The Republic and the best of what Rome originally attempted, but failed. The only significant differences that occurred in practice was to create the American constitution as it was, the idea to select a Philosopher-King (from Plato’s Republic) by a popular election to replace the sovereignty of an inherited King and establish the Senate to only represent particular regional concerns, which ended up being turned over to landowners and companies because of their ‘regional’ affiliation. It was hoped that the masses would conform to the ideal of electing a wise person to lead them for a predetermined term. In Plato’s Republic, the major quality of such a leader would be one who actually does not want to lead but is nominated to do so by force of duty. This would qualify such a person because they would not be tempted to rule unfairly.
Obviously, it was too dubious to the Americans to grant their leader this much power because it didn’t seem possible to find a the ideal leader by popular appeal. So they created the House of Representatives as a check to this and enabled the Senate to provide another one for each bill to be passed. It still remains true, however, that since the President can veto any proposed bill, he alone has a dictatorial power. But it is a better compromise than allowing an aristocrat to inherit the position.
It is not necessary for any government to have an actual official single person as a leader. But every country has them and are thus always capable of being portrayed as dictatorial. And every other country claims that their form of democratic elections are the only kind too. Propaganda keeps people in the dark about the others by inoculating them with only the bad stuff which every country has.
When you think of it, every country’s political forms have as equal claim to advantages with the similar ideal of a future where everyone is community oriented, trusting, happy, and successful. The lesson with Communism shows that not only can it not work within its own society by initial revolt, it can only work if the whole world does the same because personal claimants to property and assets everywhere will always do everything in their power to keep it. For this reason alone, I think no society would phase into it until we come to a major population crisis and sufficiently enough people to suffer and have the power to take over.
In the meantime, I think that the best form of government will evolve by combining the socialist and capitalist ideals through mixed laws.