Essay on Governance

by Susan Ternyey, June-July 2024

How did governments begin?

     From ancient times philosophers have thought about and discussed governance.  For some background, see

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_philosophers
• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-political/index.html
• https://omnilogos.com/political-theory-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment/

     It seems obvious that the government of societies began as an outgrowth of the family.  As children grew up, the extended family became a tribe.  Tribes expanded when other individuals and groups joined a tribe, either by choice or acquisition.  In an age of the nuclear family, some might question why grown children would hang around the old folks to be part of a tribe.  In times of financial hardship, grown children may be very glad to be part of an extended family.  Children growing up with good grandparents, aunts & uncles, and cousins can find a sense of belonging, love, and support that lasts a lifetime.  Life in ancient times was difficult in different ways than today, but there were good reasons to be part of a tribe, despite examples that fall short of ideal.  Elders in the tribe brought not only wisdom & experience, they brought cohesion.  Mid-range members brought protection and sustenance.  The young brought the possibility of continuance.

The Nuclear Family

     Parents, of course, are the natural leaders of the family.  Initially, children are dependent physically, emotionally and with respect to knowledge.  Parents are bigger and stronger, meaning they can offer protection & sustenance, and/or command submission.  When all other factors become equal or bettered by the maturation of the children, it is usual for adult children to continue to recognize the experience and leadership of the parents, by habit, out of respect, and/or because the emotional connection carries on.

     As children mature, wise parents step back or share their authority.   Sometimes children feel it necessary to instigate the rebalancing of control over their lives.  Parents who do not exercise their authority, or exercise it in excess, may find that rebellion ensues as soon as the children can exert themselves.  

     There are three possible parental forms of governance:  father rules, mother rules, both rule:  both are involved in decision-making, each makes decisions within his/her own sphere, or each fights for dominance.

     Which form of rule exists in a family depends upon the nature and disposition of each in respect to the other, and the division of labor.

1. A decisive or aggressive nature will tend to rule the indecisive and/or acquiescent nature; or,
2. The one primarily responsible for providing protection & sustenance tends to make the major decisions of how this sustenance is to be got & is spent, and where  & how the family or its members will locate;
3. The method of child rearing often depends upon who is primarily responsible for it—this role may change as the children mature.  It may also generally depend upon the sex of the child/children.  The primary responsibility of rearing is still best accomplished with the accomplice-ment, or support, of the other parent—as a back-up figure in one way or another, or as joint providers/authorities.

The Extended Family or Tribe

     Depending on the pattern set by the nuclear family, the leadership of the extended family may be Patriarchal or Matriarchal (where one or both of the parents is extant), more or less democratic, or by a child chosen by the parent, by several/some/few/all of the children, or by a child/children/descendant who has/have exerted him/her/themselves in some way.

     A child chosen by the parent hopefully leads because of the respect the others have for the parent and his/her decision.  Even if the children are successful at group or democratic decisions, as with any group, it’s helpful to have one person lead discussions and actions. 

     Although lineage may be reckoned either or both patriarchally and/or matriarchally,  most parental and parentally derived governance has been traditionally patriarchal.  One way of accounting for this is division of labor.  Since only the woman can bear children, she is generally the primary child-nurturer/raiser (hopefully with the back-up of her mate).  As discussed above, when the man is primarily responsible for the protection and/or sustenance of the family, it may seem natural for him to lead the family and to navigate the affairs of the family in its external interactions in the world. 

     Another way of accounting for the patriarchy of families is the natural outgrowth of the personalities and values of the parents and their societies.  That a family or society is patriarchal doesn’t necessarily mean that women are discounted or domineered.  Any wise patriarch listens to his wife, respects, and honors her.  There are folk proverbs about the influence of wives on their husbands (for example, who “wears the pants” in a relationship).  Additionally, due to differences in talent and personality, some women may be more comfortable, efficient, and successful filling certain roles for the benefit of the family.

The Community or Society

     When a tribe grows into a community or society, especially when it settles in a certain place, its governance may grow naturally out of the leadership roles of a tribe:  it may be patriarchal, matriarchal, or a society of equals.  A group of humans who do not already have a leader will

1. Disburse or disband
2. Choose a leader or group of leaders
3. Follow a leader(s) who asserts him/herself/themselves
4. Be coerced by a leader or group

     Since humans are social beings, they most often choose to remain in groups, so that even if a group disbands, it will tend to form smaller bands.  It is possible that they will all become a bunch of hermits, but a cross-sectional sampling of humans through time and place doesn’t make it likely.  The reasons for disbanding (conflicts or perhaps scarcity of resources) must outweigh the self-calculated survival (both physical & emotional) of those separating themselves.  Sometimes, especially when the reason involves limited resources, the group comes back together, perhaps periodically, for social reasons, including the biological urge to reproduce effectively.

     A leader may be chosen for his/her competence, his/her self-confidence, or the confidence the others have in his/her competence—which often depends upon his/her self-confidence.  A leader will be followed because of his/her self-confidence, competence, and/or persuasive ability; and/or the rest of the group’s lack of self-confidence or competence.

     A leader may coerce followers by physical force, mental acuity, or by emotional force.  In any case, the others of the group must lack competence, self-confidence, or the cohesive ability to counter his/her coercion.  Often this coercion is carried out by a smaller group that the leader relies on for support.

     A group may allow to its leader(s) varying amounts of authority (and there’s a wide spectrum or sliding scale of authority, from absolutism to absolute non-existent):

1. Totalitarian dictatorship or tyranny
2. Paternalism/maternalism
3. Limited monarchy
4. Advisory
5. In some limited aspects
   • Protective (vs enemies of all or some kinds, outside and/or inside) via defensive & offensive actions
   • Sustenance
   • Social
   • Intellectual or instructive (usually advisory)
   • Emotional or religious
   • Recreational

     People rarely “choose” totalitarian authority, though they may allow it out of fear of the totalitarian or fear of the lack of a totalitarian (Will anything less be able to pull it all together? Will everything fall apart if the tyrant is overthrown?).  But totalitarianism is usually brought about by coercion of one sort or another.

     Paternal/maternal authority (other than in naturally patriarchally derived governance), would usually be the “choice” of a group which follows a leader who exerts him/herself, or the general recognition of the group about the competence of that individual to lead.  This authority would, in all likelihood, be expected to provide wise/expert/experienced counsel, direction, and some degree of responsibility for the physical sustenance of the group, as well as leadership vs enemies or internal conflicts.

     A limited monarchial authority would be chosen by a group which trusted in the competence of its chosen leader and/or wished to leave the responsibilities of leadership on the chosen leader, without granting the monarch automatic total authority in all cases.

     An advisory authority would be chosen by a group which did not completely trust its leader, or trusted the competence of the group as a whole, or its members, equally (or nearly so) as well as the leader’s competence.  This group, or its members, particularly likes to make their own decisions in general, yet is a little hesitant to do so completely without some authority to advise them or to see to the enforcement of decisions.

     An advisory authority might be most nearly democratic.  I don’t know if there could exist a truly democratic group (unless very small), because I think almost all groups recognize some authority, whether or not it is an explicitly chosen authority, or merely a mentally/emotionally acknowledged authority, or whether the members don’t even recognize their own acceptance of that authority.  One person, or group of persons, will tend to stand out ahead/above the rest as leader, and that is most convenient/efficient and workable, especially in the case of protecting the group.  A truly democratic group would be the most likely of any to break up, and the larger the group, the more likely disputes/disagreements will arise, that without some leading authority may not be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

What authority would the leader (or leading group) chose?

     The coercer(s) would, of course, tend toward totalitarianism.  The leader/persuader would probably choose paternalism (though perhaps be willing to accept other forms of authority).  The self-confident might choose any of the forms, depending upon whether s/he/they was/were confident, very confident, or egotistical about her/his/their abilities, and those of the members of the larger group.  The competent’s choice might be any of the above, depending also on his/her/their own self-confidence, egotism, and view of the members or group as a whole.

     The larger the group, the more varying is the authority of the leader(s) among its members.  As the group becomes larger, the coercer must have a smaller group of strong supporters amongst the larger group.  The persuader will tend to need various special-interest lieutenant persuaders for the varying support among the members.  The self-confident will tend toward being a persuader, and the chosen leader will tend toward being a persuader, or need a support group of persuaders, or face the next choice of the group for a new leader or leading group, because group popularity/confidence is a flaky thing.  Authority only exists by recognition, cognizant or otherwise, of those being governed.

     It seems fairly obvious by now that I propose that the rule of authority is by consent of the ruled—whether this consent is willing or unwilling.  If a group/population has not overthrown a ruler, it is essentially consenting, except in the case of actual physical or numerical coercion (as in a military rule).

     I propose that the right to authority/rule depends on the reason for it:

1. Might & mightier
2. Competence and confidence
3. Chosen, chosen again, or 2^nd choice

     If the authority exists by might, it must bow to a mightier might.  If the coercer is coerced into submission, s/he/they must bow to it in turn, whether it is an upstart or an uprising.  Of course, as a coercer is a bully, s/he/they don’t care about what is fair or what the rules are, so this authority doesn’t back down easily—must be essentially crushed, possibly more than once.

     Of whether “might makes right” in the case of physical or numerical coercion, that’s not really the question.  It may be used as an excuse or rationale, but a bully at heart doesn’t really need a rationale.   It’s merely a statement of fact in the bully’s mind, that is, “might is  might”.  Anyone under the thumb of a bully can only either escape or (possibly raise a clever or clandestine) revolt.  Sometimes revolutionaries invite outsiders to their aid.

     If a leader (or group of leaders) is chosen, s/he/they must face the fact that s/he/they may be “un-chosen”, in favor of a 2^nd choice, or the 1^st chosen needs to be chosen again, as popularity sways in the breeze (often blown about by competitors).  That breeze, or gale, isn’t always congruent to the leader’s actual leadership abilities, except in the talent of persuasion (either the leader’s own, or the leader’s supporters).

     If a leader is chosen, s/he/they must face the fact that s/he/they may be “un-chosen”, in favor of a 2^nd choice, or the 1^st chosen needs to be chosen again, as popularity sways in the breeze (often blown about by competitors).  That breeze, or gale, isn’t always congruent to the leader’s actual leadership abilities, except in the talent of persuasion (either the leader’s own, or the leader’s supporters).

What authority/governance would the people choose?

     When a group is ruled by (other than coerced) consent, the purpose and effectiveness of its governance is of the group’s (and individual’s) own choice.  Pretty well all groups rely on some form of governance, even if tacitly.  Members of a society may belong to more than one group or more than one governing entity:

1. Protection of the group or its individuals (including attacks on health, economics, land, sovereignty, etc.): defensive & offensive
2. Sustenance  (could be governmental programs, co-ops, charities, etc.)
3. Social (these can be traditional government entities, social groups, and idols/influencers)
4. Instructional (such as intellectuals, philosophers, media, educators, bureaucracies, as well as elected officials speaking from the bully pulpit)
5. Religious (whether in a theocracy or a society with separate churches)
6. Recreational (like sports teams/leagues, corporations, bureaucracies . . . )

     The group may choose a strictly limited or specified function for its governance:  such as  
advisory functions, limited decision-making functions, paternalistic functions, or an autocratic function.  It may choose one, some, or all of the above purposes for its governance, in varying proportions to other functions and to each function itself.  But the group ought to consider before choosing, and then abide by the consequences of its decisions, in terms of what the form of authority requires of individuals, what the authority viably can provide, and how workable/effective that authority is in itself.  Naturally, the group may find the need to change its choices in these considerations, but that’s not always easy.  Better to be wise in the first place, take stock of past and contemporary examples, as well as using some intelligent foresight into possible consequences.

What’s the best form of Government?

     The best form of government depends upon the people governed.  Are they homogenous or have a high degree of variability in ideas, goals, attitudes, values?  Is there a cooperative spirit among the group?  If not, they are likely to disband or disintegrate.  What is the size and complexity of the group and the geography of the area they inhabit?

1. Uninformed people need an intelligent and trustworthy, paternalistic & instructional ruler.
2. Busy people need representational government, such as those in subsistence agrarian cultures or in large & complex societies.
3. A group with finite resources, such as limited land or water, may find, at least from time to time, the necessity of a sustenential role for their government.
4. The more educated (not propagandized/indoctrinated) the society, the more its members ought to govern themselves.  The individual governs the Self, and involves his/her Self in governmental decisions, for example, voting for representatives and laws/rules.
5. There must be a balance between the group standard of ethics and its laws/rules.  If the standard of ethics greatly differs from the law, or a large number of the group has a differing standard of ethics, no amount of law can untangle all the loopholes which the lawless can manufacture.  For instance, a theocracy would only work for a group that all believe alike.   On the other hand, the more the members of the group govern themselves, the less govern-mental control must be exerted upon them.  I propose that nearly any form of government can work, if the people are good/ethical/moral, and informed to the necessary degree.    If an individual or smaller group does not like the laws/rules of the group, the laws/rules may be duly, lawfully changed, or the individual(s) should leave the group.
6. Governments must take into account human nature, which is fallible and flawed.

Rights and Freedoms

     What about individual Rights?  Membership in the group implies consent to its authorities & governance.  Individuals may give up their rights, but groups should not take them away, though a criminal (duly convicted in an honest and just court) may be made to forfeit individual Rights by law.  Trials should establish guilt, as well as protect the Rights of the individual in process of conviction.

     One definition of individual Rights may be “those freedoms which may be exercised by an individual” outside any society.  Certain of those freedoms end up being exchanged for the benefits of belonging to a society, including when a man joins a female’s society (such as in marriage).

     In a free society, an individual has the right to make his/her own decisions about:  where to live, what to do, and how to live (as long as it is lawful).  The intrinsic rights of a group would include the ability to expel dissidents, to protect its own form of governance, to keep out subversives/subversions. 

Conclusion

     Governments grew naturally out of family structures via tribes & communities.  Different forms of governance developed from the experience, needs, and nature of both those who govern and those governed.  Humans are social beings, and generally belong to more than one group with functions of governance.  Authority and freedom, as well as the functions of governments, inhabit a range along a spectrum of possibilities, and nearly any can be successful if the members of the group are agreed upon the rules, willing to put in the efforts required to have a successful group, able to choose for themselves, are ethical, and informed.