Government can be assessed in terms of the way this framework is used.
This page assumes an understanding of Political Maturation.
Any society requires the differential benefits for groups to be more or less tolerated and group struggles to be more or less peaceful and in equilibrium. If not, there will be social turmoil as groups turn to violence to regain (or gain more) power and wealth.
If this persists or worsens, the society becomes a «failed state». Looting, gang violence and warlords disrupt ordinary communal living. In such situations, much of the superstructure of, simply cannot function properly or even at all. There is no and individuals are left wholly to their own devices in regard to meeting their .
In Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew shrewdly observed and proved that:
A Stage-1 Political Society has not matured politically at all. The challenge for the regime is to ensure stability while strengthening the country, despite the government's use of repression and oppression—hence the label «authoritarian».
Stage-1 Pragmatic-Pluralist societies are tough places to be a political player. Calls for «democracy» take on a different appearance in the present frame of reference. The term is used vaguely as a rallying cry—often to put a different set of Stage-1 elites into the top spot.
Genuine change requires the main features of the legitimist mode to be instituted; and that means: power-shifts and wealth-shifts via rule of law. Talking about these shifts (to happen when «the people are ready», of course) is different from wanting these shifts or making them happen.
In this modern era, many currentare under pressure to move towards a . Until they do this unequivocally, the societies will be periodically subject to social disruption, even revolutionary turmoil, as discriminated and non-enfranchised groups protest. In modern times, it has got somewhat harder for government to stay at , ignore laws, trample over human rights, and repress all dissent—but it is still quite common.
Even if a government merely leans towards authoritarian (i.e. applies rule of law flexibly, limits enfranchisement), theof the elites will over-ride any sense of their obligations. In such societies, virtually no-one in power will be trusted, or even expected to act for the good of society: something like this seems to apply in Thailand.
often have rather limited rational or consultative components; and politicians stay a long way away from where their decisions have effects. So there will be damage to the environment and to whole villages or towns due to «tragedy of the commons» effects, free-riding, and just dumping «bads» on the public because it is expedient.
The management ofmay be attempted forcefully via restriction or distortion of statistics, internal propaganda, and control of media. Ways to distract people and activate positive moods will also be developed. Society will suffer if its is in disarray and people become too disillusioned with politicians, policies and political efforts.
Governments will then have much difficulty in addressing what individuals, communities and groups actuallyfor a decent life. Neglected or severely disadvantaged communities often depend on philanthropic efforts and committed workers locally, and possibly from abroad to provide basic education, sanitation, and health-care.
Originally posted: July 2009; Last updated: 27 Jan 20103.9c Step 2 Comparing Ethical Choice Approaches.htm