GOVERNMENT AND SELF-GOVERNMENT

If “government” is what we create so that we can manage our relationships with each other whether it is the relations we establish in a family, a community, a business, a corporation, or an association, then we are the government. We are the government and do the governing in the social group. And where there is a group, there is “politics” and therefore some form of governance. This is primarily true for democracies and, of course, there are many kinds of democracies.

It is not true of other forms of government. In those forms, those with “power” (military, financial, intellectual, etc.) decide about how things will be governed. They may do that unilaterally, or through conquest, or bargaining, or negotiating. However they come to the place that they are in a position to decide on the structure of the governing, they then govern. The forms and processes they set up thereafter become that kind of government. And in these cases, the government is not democratic, that is, of or by the people. When democracies began appearing in the modern world after centuries and centuries of kingdoms, tyrants, dictators, aristocracies, etc., the new idea was pretty radical. It is the idea that the source of power, legitimacy, and government lies in the people. The source does not lie in “the divine right of kings,” or some royal blood (family), or in “might makes right” (military power), or in conquest. The idea that the source of government is the people was a radical idea when it appeared in the 17th and 18th centuries. Today most of us take it for granted.

When we set up a government, what is the government for? In every case, it is to structure the relationships of the people. This is true with a couple, a family, a business, a nation. Given that, we can now explore: How do we want to structure our relationships? How formal or informal? How much based status or competence? How much based on seniority (tenure) or skill?

When it comes to a nation or state, the purpose of structuring government similarly depends the goals that we set for the structuring. The U.S. experiment in democracy set it up so that government primarily was structured for protection from enemies, domestic and foreign, and so it was design for as little government as possible. That’s no longer true. Over the years and centuries, “government” has grown to take on more and more control over our lives. Suppose that we now ask the question afresh: How much government do we need? How much is best? What kind of government is optimal for a people? Controversial questions, right?

If we start from the position that we want a democracy that is of the people, and for the people, and by the people, then what’s required of people so that they can do a good job in the governance (or politics) that they set up? Now we get to some psychological questions and issues, do we not? The founding fathers of the new democracy of the United States believed that it would only work long-

term if there was an informed and educated population. That’s premise was based upon another premise— democracy isn’t as simple as in a Kingdom or a Dictatorship. In organizing a group in those ways, all people have to do is obey. “Comply with the rules and do what you are told to do and all will be well.” (!) I think it was Aristotle who said that the most efficient form of government is a dictatorship— a benevolent king.

When we organize ourselves (at any level, family, corporation, country) for a democracy, things get messy. In a democracy, people have to exercise their personal powers of speech, debate, tolerance, acceptance of difference, work through conflict in a civil and honorable way, seek to understand opposing views and positions, and make their voice heard in order to affect the ongoing development of “the government.” Wow! To do all of that requires a lot of personal responsibility, accountability, and effort. The heart of a healthy democracy is that we make a social contract with each other—one where we say to each other that we will tolerate and accept each other and each other’s differences. We accept differences rather than demonizing them or punishing them. We create a system where change is not only endured, but actually cultivated and promoted because we anticipate growth and development. The social contract is that if I don’t get my way on a position, I will accept that and work within the legitimate structures to bring about the change that I prefer.

What all of this requires is that within a good healthy political government of any and every group is a lot of simultaneous self-government. In fact, one of the goals of healthy government is to facilitate self-government in people. We do that in families as we work to enable and empower our children to become independent, knowing that by moving to a state of independence they will be able to create health inter-dependent relationships. We do that in our schools by teaching our children to become self-reliant as they discover their strengths and find their best gifts and develop them so that they develop skills for making a living and creating good relationships. Such “government” is for the purpose of actualizing the highest and the best in everyone who participates.

How then do we do that in our societies? What would be our objectives and processes for creating good citizens? How would we enable people to become productive as members of the body politic? Would it not also be to understand how the government is not to become a mommy-or-daddy to grown up people, but release them to increasing responsibilities and freedoms? In fact, unleashing self-actualizing governments would involve developing the leadership ability of politicians at all levels (from city counsels to national offices) so that as a whole we need the least amount of government intervention and regulation, not more.

In therapy and in coaching and in education and in most of these developmental disciplines, we say that our goals is to teach or coach ourselves out of a job. That is, we want to enable people to stand on their own feet, take ownership of their own powers, to run their own brains, make up their own minds, make their own decisions and as they do so do it in a way that creates rich and robust relationships and that is a win/win relationship in every domain. What if politicians thought that way? Their job is to facilitate the overall development of people individually and collectively so that we work so well together that we need them less and less. Hmmmm. That would be an interesting world, would it not?