A few thoughts on governance

[Super Dude]

The following ideas may seem simplistic or like simplistic restatements of complex issues argued frequently in the area of politics and political philosophy, but consider them anyway.

1) Let's suppose our country finds itself in the midst of a great crisis, or has become aware of some great catastrophe looming on the horizon.  Politicians and populace alike recognize its present or impending nature, as well as its seriousness, but cannot agree on how to combat it.  The politicians of the country mostly agree on a piece of policy or law that will make life difficult in the short-term, but result in completely evading the impending doom.  The populace however won't have it; they suggest a different piece of law or policy that may stave off the problem for a while or may even even present a logical solution to the problem when taken in isolation, but combined with other factors in the situation at hand, will be ruinous to the nation in the foreseeable future.  When the people wills it, does the government reserve the right to say no?  In asking this question I assume that disobeying the will of the people yields no significant immediate political consequences for the politicians involved, except that in the long term the people's belief in political efficacy declines.

2) I'm studying the Enlightenment right now in a political theory class, and we've been learning about how the development of scientific method fundamentally changed the way in which people asked and answered questions of the nature of man and the world.  Francis Bacon basically invented science, by saying that answering questions should not merely involved sitting around and philosophizing and pondering; if you want to know how something works or if something works a certain way, you go into nature and find out: the answers to all the mysteries of the universe can be understood through observation.  Since then, great strides have been made in fields from physical science to medicine to plain philosophy, because we have learned by observing, by experience.  Of course humanity has been observing and learning governance since 10,000 B.C.E. at least if not longer; we have seen the patterns, how someone gets corrupted, how people get disenfranchised, what causes empires to rise and fall.  We have observed and understood these phenomena to such an extent that there is a wealth of literature and a political science community, yet the only great stride we've been able to make in the science of governance is the creation of representative and social democracy.  I wouldn't say that each of these has failed, but you'd think that with all the time we've spent closely watching the rise and fall of empires, with all the crooked bureaucracies, and with all the revolutions in all other areas of human knowledge (hell, even art), how is it that the science of governance has not had its scientific revolution?  How is it that after around 10,000 years of the same patterns showing up in most if not all governance, all the same weaknesses of human nature, we have still not learned how to safeguard sovereign powers from the temptations of human nature?  In fact, how do sovereigns, knowing the checkered past of their occupation, still not learn from that history?

3) And most basic question for last, what is the purpose of governance?

[rumborak]

The populace however won't have it; they suggest a different piece of law or policy that may stave off the problem for a while or may even even present a logical solution to the problem when taken in isolation, but combined with other factors in the situation at hand, will be ruinous to the nation in the foreseeable future.  When the people wills it, does the government reserve the right to say no

Of course. Part of the job description of any leader is to go sometimes against the short-sighted will pf the populace they lead. Many times it's also a question of lack of information. The leader has access to, and the time to process, information that the populacve can't or won't. As long as there is a healthy and equally powerful opposition that points out when this goes beyond what is reasonable, this is fine.

I wouldn't say that each of these has failed, but you'd think that with all the time we've spent closely watching the rise and fall of empires, with all the crooked bureaucracies, and with all the revolutions in all other areas of human knowledge (hell, even art), how is it that the science of governance has not had its scientific revolution?  How is it that after around 10,000 years of the same patterns showing up in most if not all governance, all the same weaknesses of human nature, we have still not learned how to safeguard sovereign powers from the temptations of human nature?  In fact, how do sovereigns, knowing the checkered past of their occupation, still not learn from that history?

How do you perfectly run a collection of patently imperfect beings? Answer is, you can't.

3) And most basic question for last, what is the purpose of governance?

To do the things that are wasted on having each single person do. Just as you get a financial advisor to figure out your finances, you get governance to do stuff you can't, or don't have time to.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I'll add my answers to the questions later, but rumbo I would like to point out that I asked why governance has not made the bounds of progress other areas of human knowledge have despite more time for experimentation and understanding of human nature, not why it isn't perfect (which no one can ask of governance, really, as you've pointed out).

[rumborak]

I would say there's been shitloads of experimentation. Look at the right column on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_government

those are all tried-out forms of governance.

rumborak

[dethklok09]

experimenting with science is far easier than with government, and it's alot easier to convince other scientists than to convince other politicians

[Super Dude]

True, but I want to get down to the core of why that is.  Why, in the face of overwhelming historical and observable evidence that satisfying partial interests at the expense of the many damages the integrity of the institution - and can have disastrous effects for the nation as a whole - do politicians continue to give in to the temptations of human nature?  Given they have been granted sovereignty by the will of the people, you'd think they'd have the wisdom and reasoning that would compel them to ignore human nature, knowing full well where that path leads.

Additionally, it seems that governance as an institution whose purpose is to bar individuals who give in to human nature from exploitation and corruption of the greater good has failed.  Institutions with rules do not have the flexibility or cunning to stave corruption for long, and the list is long of governments who eventually succumb to it (I realize there are other reasons states fail, but this is a big one, especially in the last century or so).

This of course is not my own personal answer to my three questions; I'm just putting them off because I'm tired.

[j]

True, but I want to get down to the core of why that is.

Because it's not really much of a true "science" in the strictest sense.  It's like sociology or psychology: we can make observations and try to make connections and draw conclusions, but it's very difficult to obtain fundamental empirical data given the subject matter (human behavior and all the things that affect it).

Why, in the face of overwhelming historical and observable evidence that satisfying partial interests at the expense of the many damages the integrity of the institution - and can have disastrous effects for the nation as a whole - do politicians continue to give in to the temptations of human nature?  Given they have been granted sovereignty by the will of the people, you'd think they'd have the wisdom and reasoning that would compel them to ignore human nature, knowing full well where that path leads.

What is it that is supposed to convince me that elected officials possess great capacity for "wisdom and reasoning", beyond the average constituent?  Based on my observations, quite the opposite tends to be true.

But regardless, it's not a simple binary scenario.  First, I'd differentiate between those who act foolishly mostly out of ignorance (whether of the consequences of their actions or that their actions are wrong at all), and those who genuinely do not care about the good of society as a whole.  There's probably some overlap there, but beyond that, it's easy to insulate yourself from history and justify repeating it by reassuring yourself that "things are different now", etc.  There are just a million factors at play.

As an aside, on one hand, you could say that your ability to recognize these inconsistencies indicates that you're not nearly dishonest enough ever to be elected into a public office (that's a compliment, by the way). On the other hand, maybe a lot of corrupt politicians started out as idealists this way, asking the same questions that you and I are, and then it all went out the window when they got drunk with power.  It's funny how it happens at all levels: for some, all it takes for them to throw aside their morals is to be a PTA officer or a city council member.

-J

[dethklok09]

To expand on the drunk with power thing, a possibility is that because they are in government what they think could be interpreted to them as automatically right because they are in a state of power. So they might not even really think about the consequences and just take a blind stand simply because they are part of the government.