Post on 02-Feb-2023
A STUPENDUS CRISIS AWAITS MANKIND
A POLITICAL SCIENCE BOOK
By Grant Wadyabere
Written August 2014
First Publication (02 September 2014)
Introduction
Without any fear of contradictions, this school of thought seeks to elucidate the future of the
contemporary crucial episode in the history of humankind. The author argues that humankind
passes through four episodes in the development of regimes. This is not to say there are only
four regime types, but history gives us an opportunity to satisfactorily, enjoy only these four
common ones. Any other regime type not listed here must be located under one of those listed.
These four types of regime (anarchy, aristocracy, tyranny, and democracy), progressively
degenerates with anarchy at the top and democracy at the bottom. As soon as the final regime
attained, the circulation automatically restarts. Logically, I say, it is paradoxical for one to say
events will befall exactly in the same way as they did in the past.
Let us be honest here, history has given us an opportunity to experience all types of regimes. It
is an acceptable fact that people once existed in every forms of government. In addition, it
becomes automatically difficult for me to avoid the feeling that there is no new regime type to
come. Power was centralized on the individual (in the state of nature), then transferred to the
few individuals (in Aristocratic regime), the Aristocrats become tyrant (creating a tyrannical
environment) and recently the human society witnessed a shift of concern from society to
individual (through the so-called liberal democracy). Well, that is the theory, but in reality,
there is a shocking meaning behind these scenes. The human society is in the crucial episode in
history (more on that latter). However, it is not my intention to make this theory seem as a
product of prophecy… but useful information from a mere political scientist. Much of mental
than spiritual force was used to produce this theory; accordingly this school of thought must
not be wrongly decoded.
CHAPTER I
WHAT IS NEXT?
The period 1914 to 1918, the world inhabitants witnessed the First World War. From 1939 to
1945, history has given humankind an opportunity to reencounter another World War (World
War 2). Cold Wars (the second one over Ukrainian case) and War on Terror are also some of
the Major Wars the human society experienced in history. Things are changing. Many states
are turning to liberal democracy. Many eyes are on the West; the world’s powerhouse.
However, something is happening in this world. The human society is facing a predicament in
predicting the future events. Are we moving towards a one-world government? Will liberal
democracy end it all? Will terrorism become the source of actual power in the international
arena? Will world war three end it all? Are we waiting for the selection, few to heaven and
many to hell? Alternatively, we are just waiting for history to repeats itself!
Liberal democracy has been one of the more passionately contested phenomena of history. It
has been a prime attractor of regiment books, articles, and intense debates in contemporary
intellectual playing ground. T his issue of liberal democracy needs to be confronted austerely.
Looking at the observable facts in panorama it gives us an awkward picture of nothing more or
less than the turning point in human history. I say therefore that, if the end justifies the means
a mature mind then conclude that the means determine the end. From this, arises a question; so
where are we going? I reply that, it is only in perusing the passing of events where one can
notice that the first round in the circulation of types of human governments (regimes) is at
present. The internationalization of liberal democracy will mark the end of history, as divulged
by Francis Fukuyama. Liberal democracy (or the Westernization of the global village) is playing
a central role in joining the circle to where it commenced. I want to be quick to say that; this
theory must not be misunderstood, and an unmistakable imbibing of this school of thought
exclude the feeling that the events will befall exactly as in the past.
For better or worse, I am not the first person to talk about the end history anyway. George
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who argued that history, has the beginning, middle and an end once
discussed the notion of history. From Hegel to Karl Marx who argued that a communist utopia
would marks the end of history. Recently, Francis Fukuyama saw liberal democracy marks the
end of history. Most if not all of these analysis lacks any larger comprehensive understanding
of the past and future. This is not to say that these people are wrong, but there are some
miscalculations, which this school of thought seeks to correct.
There are numerous episodes in the development of human governments. Much of them are
uncommon for the reason that they are related or akin to one another. Accordingly, I set aside
many quasi regime types and or amalgamate them to form four common regime types
throughout the history of humankind. In its history of civilization, every society passes though
these four phases. Except, in the case of colonization or imposed regime type. Many of the
conflicts in developing states have something to do with regime types. This is in as much of
skipping another step in the development of the regimes. Some regimes best suit developed
nations and others developing states. In the case of democracy, only developed states can afford
it. These mishaps orchestrated by liberal democracy frequent request for more ingredients.
However Plato one of the greatest philosophers on earth, outlined five types of regimes as;
aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Aristocracy is a situation in which
an aristocrat is governing or when the better class of citizens within the society rule.
Timocracy, when people who hold respect and, or the wealthy ones rule… Oligarchy, when a
small group of influential people has control over state affairs. Democracy, a system of
governance in which the few elected individuals represents the interests of the voting majority.
However, obstacles both in application and in understanding surround this concept. Finally,
Plato placed tyranny, which is too ordinary, cheap and common. Even in the jungle, this type of
governance exists. Both in theory and practice these five regime types are unquestionably exist.
However, I shall avoid duplicating the ideas of Plato but divulge a simple and precise history of regimes.
In critically analyzing the qualities of these regimes one can find out that many philosophers and
political scientists have explained this subject in different ways, in as much of that it becomes difficult to
understand the progression of regimes. However, I say then, any citizen’s love for the government is a
result of the imagination of the state of nature. A period, in theory people do as they feel and in reality
the powerful play a dual role; create the course of action for the powerless and choose the best way of
acting for themselves. The powerless having only a single duty; to act as prearranged by those with
power. You must therefore understand this; the power I am referring to is not the relative one, but
actual power (capability to use force whenever the circumstances require). Anarchy is period of
disguised justice, in which no one holds rights.
This period then superseded by a busy episode, where resources were becoming limited due to increase
in population and human extended desire to personalize resources. Then those resources made the basis
for power; depriving those inconsistent with the possessor’s demands and rewarding those who obey
the haves. That leads to an increase in power within certain groups of people. As time goes on resources
then seem weak in guaranteeing power (since the poor resorted to substitute goods) so the haves resort
to hard power in safeguarding their rule. With time, the use of hard power seems unprofitable since
the mass resisted by various means such as Satyagraha. The best option was then to bring about a
disguised justice in whom citizens say on what the rulers what to hear, not predetermine what ought to
be done. In this scenario the few individuals (the rulers) holds power to accept or reject the views since
they have a final say on state issues. This regime type seems to be weak and was then sophisticated and
termed democracy.
In the future, I am considering the rope broke and every entity stands on its own that is anarchy. It will
be a period for all necessary actions. Before going too far let me start by simplifying the matter.
According to Plato, the regimes outlined bellow progressively degenerate, genesis with aristocracy and
cessation with tyranny.
Aristocracy timocracy oligarchy democracy tyranny
It is necessary, however to collect the significant regimes in history to understand where we are
coming from and going. Humans like other living organisms have their characteristics
determined by environment. In particular, the stage in the history of civilization determines
human actions and type of regimes. The environment is naturally existing (An Act of God) to be
in a seasonal form. However, I shall discuss this elsewhere at length.
There are many types of regimes and most of them need not to fill the pages of literature
because of their limited significances. On my perspective, there are four types of regimes.
Moreover, are quite different from those outlined by Plato both in sequence and in statistics.
You must therefore know that, at first there was anarchy, I shall not leave this as a type of
regime since those who lived during that period were incapable of doing anything they pleases
due to the opponent’s negative forces. That negative force I shall consider it a regime in its own.
For Wadyabere, regimes moves in the sequence bellow. The life we are living in is like a pool game in
which war is the black ball. The black ball signifies the end of the game, whether you sink it, whather
at first or at last. Whenever you choose not to use force against someone you will be postponing the
conflict but you will find yourself in that conflict again in the future. In part, thank to democracy for
preventing the black ball from seeking too early. However, the crisis is now at our doorstep. Look closely
at the diagram bellow.
The circulation of regimes
Anarchy
Aristocracy
Tyranny
(Liberal ) Democracy
Let us be honest here, the regimes mentioned above have existed in human history and in many
developing countries, some of the characteristics of one or many of the regimes above still exist.
The circle starts with anarchy, where the citizens are the regimes in themselves. Aristocracy,
the rule by the noble follow after anarchy, from there the situation appeared to be
uncontrollable and tyranny took opportunity in human history. However, tyranny successfully
failed to receive support from across the world. The decline of tyranny from human history
gave rise to democracy; the controversial concept than ever in human society. Recently, we
witnessed the inauguration of liberal democracy, indeed taking place under the total and tight
control of the western part of the world. If we look around the present political world it
appears that, the greater part of the world is westernizing. However in some states (especially
Islamic ones) more is still to be done for them to westernize.
To illustrate my approach, it is necessary, however to liken human beings to other living
organisms. I shall link the human actions to environment. This is to say; people like other living
organisms for example tree they react according to the changes in physical environment. Trees
have their different characteristics in different seasons; the same applies to human being. Trees
go through these seasons; spring, summer, autumn and winter; and accordingly humans pass
through anarchy, aristocracy, tyranny and democracy in a circulatory system. This system is an
Act of God, and is unavoidable but maybe only delayed. I shall not explain this anymore since I
treated it at length elsewhere. The diagram bellow represent the circulation of seasons, and it is
in comparing and contrasting it with the regime circle above where you can understand this
school of thought.
Circulation of seasons
Naturally, we have four seasons in a year, starting with spring, followed by summer, fall/
autumn and finally Winter. Humans too have seasons in their history, after the end, the system
circulates again. Perusing the innumerable regimes existed o earth, they can be summed into
four common regimes. At the beginning, there was a State of nature, followed by Aristocracy,
Authoritarian and finally Democracy, which marks the end of history. Many questions can be
raised against the inclusion of state of nature as a type of regime. I want to be quick in
answering that. When there is rule by law the type of regime is authoritarian, the rule by the
noble Aristocracy, and the rule by all through representatives Democracy. Anarchy then is the
non-existence of a higher authority above a citizen, more or less like democracy with a
debatable realistic authority over citizens.
Moreover, from an analytical perspective, the seasons, which determine the characteristics of
plants and animals, humans as animals, too go through them. As the season varies depending
on location, regimes also differ depending on location. For example, many if not all states in
Africa adopted democracy some years later after the West have adopted it. If there is, a state,
Spring
Sumer
Fall/ Autumn
Winter
which missed one of these fundamental types of regimes that state, is will radically visit that
regime type. Most conflicts within states are a product of shortcut development.
The human spring being Anarchy, summer being Aristocracy, fall the Authoritarian and winter
represent Democracy. Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan, John Locke in The Second Treatise on
Civil Government 1680s, Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Law 1748, Jean- Jacques Rousseau
and David Hume in a Treatise of Human Nature 1739, among other contemporary political
philosophers and theorists wrote about the state of nature. All argued that people once existed
in a situation in which each man decides for himself on how to act, and is the judge, jury and
executioner in his own case whenever disputes arise. People then are said to relinquish the
state of nature (which is akin to anarchy) and surrendered some of their rights to the
government in exchange of security (through the so-called Social Contract). Analogically in the
beginning of seasons, in the spring, temperature gets warmer plants start to grow and leaves
appear on the trees. It is a favorable environment for flowers to bloom. However, under this
environment plats cannot bear fruits, so it is unsatisfactory. The same manner people fail to
make wealth in the state of nature; plants need the summer to make fruits.
Then, people surrendered their rights to the government in exchange of security. That was
another step in the development of humans. Automatically the governments both in
imagination and in reality were then made up of the noble man in the society (that is
Aristocracy). There is lighter and long days in the summer, similarly, the period of Aristocracy
lasted for a long period. During that period, people made wealth (the same way as plants make
fruits in summer). More states had developed in aristocracy; even history can support me on
that. I am not saying Aristocracy is the best regime anyway. Because it was an episode that
successes a complicated society it seemed to be fair. In fact, a system can surface its weaknesses
after another one invented.
In the fall (commonly known as autumn) trees stop growing, leaves change color and fall down
on the ground. The days are short. Analogically, in authoritarian periods development fall, life
is short and people need to adapt to such an unfriendly environment. Economic, human and
technological development was limited during that period. The humankind passes through the
phase of authoritarian and many scholars divulged that it is the worst form of regime. Many if
not all states pass through this episode, if not, you will not miss it in the second phase. The
governments of Idi Amin Dada, Mobutu Sese Seko , Yahya Jammeh and Muammar Qadaffi can
be used as reference. This is not because they are only authoritarian governments but they
entered the phase after many states exoduses it.
Finally, the West inaugurated what is known as democracy; a concept with uneasy difficulties
in understanding. Liberal democracy the modern model of democracy is being universally
embraced. Moreover, this form of regime marks the end of history. However, I shall talk about
this bellow. Winter is the coldest season, the temperature is always coldest, and some areas may
have snowstorms. Days are short and plants resting wait for spring to grow again. I expect
everyone to imbibe this one easily since thus where we are at present. The temperature is hot.
Yes from Cold War to Cold Peace, open your eyes and see the American handiworks across the
world, from Iraq, Libya, and in the case of Osama bin Laden and sanctions Zimbabwe. Can you
see the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons launched on daily basis in this world? Can
someone explain the power dynamics in world politics? Then are we in a state of Balance of
Power, or there are imbalances when it comes to military capability!
Weapons of mass destruction are on the increase. If peace is to continue to be with us then
what is the reason for those weapons. Undoubtedly, these weapons are to be used in our
political spring, which is on the doorstep of humankind. The united forces will soon
disintegrate and each entity will stand on its own. Get this, plants in winter are resting waiting
for spring to come and grow again. States are resting in democracy waiting for anarchy to
come and grow again. Thus, it is in after anarchy where the human society will find the new
world order. All weapons never deployed on this earth will explode and the winner will lead
throughout seasons in the next circle.
Power is not evenly distributes across the world. Generally, the western side of the world tends
to possess more power as compared to other political continents, in particular regiment the
nations cannot do without the United States of America while America can do without them.
Many eyes are on the U.S, the judge, jury and executioner in its own circumstances within this
limited international village. Myriad the people fiasco to define power but everyone knows it
when they see it. Generally, power can be seen as the limited or non-existence of constrains to
pursuing of interests. In spite of the global opposition, America and its allies infiltration in to
internal affairs of other states continues to thunder forward. Endless examples can be given to
support this line of argument. The question remains, where the U.S hegemony is leading us? If
to everlasting peace then the heaven is on earth. If the intention of the west is to dominate the
world then all non-westerners have two hells (one on earth and the other after death). The
answer can be achieved if one writes down the western invasions in other states and whether
are on pre-emptive, reactive or pro active basis. However, I shall not comment on this as in
doing so I may found myself in careless assumptions and unfounded emotions.
No matter which side you look at this, the terrible crisis is before us. Without any fear of
contradiction, I wish to sketch aspects surrounding the future of liberal democracy. This
heinous period cannot be avoided, but only postponed to future generations. There are only
two options for human beings moving one-step back in the history of regimes or the human
society will experience the greatest pain than ever. If a choice given to choose between tyranny
on the right hand, and anarchy on the left hand I could always choose the right hand.
However, I am not advocating for tyranny but the power of the government must not be too
limited as this may inaugurate anarchy. I prefer tyranny to anarchy because in a tyrannical
regime, there is a “government versus citizen relationship” but in anarchy, there is war against
all scenarios. It is not my intention to inject a feeling of fear among global inhabitants, but to
layout the journey of humankind. The unseen greatest and most heinous crisis in the history of
humankind is near. However, this school of thought must, by any means be prevented from
becoming as sadza with okra swallowed not fully digested. This subject contains more if not
entirely information from mental power, but I annexed the events within history for you to
understand the political world.
Surely, democracy marks the end of history and there will be no any other form of government
that will exist besides those existed before. Liberal democracy as a form of democracy is in
particular the final form of regimes in the human society. Logically, it is paradoxical to say
that, liberal democracy is going to be the form of government forever and ever, but the circle
will hark back to where it commenced. The how question will be discussed in continue reading
this document.
CHAPTER II
The end of liberal democracy and Anarchy
The world is becoming an angry, conflicted violent place. Liberal democracy is too artificial
than natural. I say then, however it is a purposeful frivolous concept formulated by the west to
safeguard its rank on the world’s affairs. This concept is necessary in the sense that it keeps
history going, and is the only form of a regime, which can adjoin the cycle to the starting point.
However, because of its artificial nature it continues face complications in its application.
Accordingly, thank you Francis Fukuyama and Huntington, the former at least, for being a
patriot and for discovering that liberal democracy marks the end of history, and at most for
foreseeing that there is no any other form of government to exist after liberal democracy, the
latter for noticing the contemporary clashes of civilizations across the world.
Fukuyama, like my person, argues that this is the end (the present). Liberal democracy is
concluding the cycle of events. On the contrary, it is not my intention to continue praising
Fukuyama, but complementing him at least and or criticizing him at most. I ask then, the end of
history is not history? If is not then that history is incomplete. If is then history is endless.
Anyway, I shall not discuss this anymore since I have elucidated it at length above. I shall leave
that duty for Huntington to add other sources of conflicts, which are rocking the world besides
clash of civilizations and religion. Samuel Huntington saw civilizations clashing. To avoid
discrimination and act of favoritism, I shall stand between two of them, with liberal democracy
on one side and clash of civilizations on the other side. To exercise intellect, since Fukuyama
argue that liberal democracy marks the end of history. In replying Fukuyama, Huntington
argued that there would be clash of civilizations. Let me say, therefore, an unmistakable
observation says the cycle is going where it stated.
Returning to the subject being, endless examples can be given to notice the demise of liberal
democracy and the inauguration of anarchy. I am thankful to know that. May the almighty
father help me eliminate emotions, limit assumptions and expose the facts, as I will be
divulging my thoughts.
Liberal democracy shifts the focus from societal development to individual development. The
inauguration of liberal democracy necessitated the retuning of some rights of citizens once
taken away during their exodus from the state of nature. This means, some of the powers were
annexed to the citizen’s side. What was done then to the government after that to avoid see saw
relationship between the government and citizens? Will this create a balance of power scenario
in a state? If the aim is to bring in to being a balance of power situation how then can the
government control the mass. Get this, 20= 10 +10; these sides are equal, what if we remove
one 10 on that last part? Will you be correct in saying 20= 10? It is common that unlimited
government is termed a dictatorship, and limited governments called democracies.
Unfortunately, liberal democracy comes with the hive of power on the government side of
which there was a balance of power between the citizens and governments. This created a
situation in which citizens have more power than the government, the genesis of anarchy!
Liberal democracy is in many third world states imposed than naturally achieved. The
governments of America and Britain have sanctioned many states in the name of democracy
seeking. These states under sanctions will find their way out of crisis and then develop, once
they become developed nations the dependence syndrome will disappear. Western materialistic
civilization is leading the whole world into an equilibrium state. The international community
will reach the apex of development and all political, economic and military equipment will
become practically unusable. All states will possess the second strike capability hence use of
weapons will harm all the parties involved. It is from this point things will start to fall apart.
Get this correctly; states are developing both economically and in military capability. It will
come a time where there will be a balance of power in the international arena; states will reach
a situation where there will be a second strike capability. Invasion and interference in the
foreign state’s affairs will be unthinkable of. Then the human society will become
uncontrollable. The main interest of the states in joining international, regional and sub
regional organizations is security. Whenever states reach a state of equilibrium in security
matters, the reasons for continued existence of these organizations will be unrealistic. Given
this scenario, states will withdraw their membership from organizations. Much of politics
would be done at the state level. Since people would be having wealth, the role of the
government in day-to-day lives of citizens will loosen. As a result, citizens will distance
themselves from the government to increase their utility. They would be avoiding paying tax,
and legislatures that limit human enjoyment of full freedoms.
Democracies tend to use their powers outside their states since they have a limited jurisdiction
over citizens at home. This provides a scenario whereby the governments invade other states to
gain support from home. At the end, democracies will clash and long ago ties will loosen
causing an “each state for itself” situation. That will be so because there will be absence of
appeasement which appeared to be the major tool of war postponing in the past. There will be
no appeasements since all sates would have military capability to sustain its own existence. The
period will see absents of imports and exports since each state will be self-sustaining. However,
forces, which will cause anarchy, are from within the state.
Since the main duty of government is territory protection. Foreign invasion will be practically
impossible and politically unthinkable of. Then, the government will be consuming taxpayer’s
money while its role minimal. At this point, the citizens will eliminate the government.
Population is on the increase, in the near future differences will surface. Fellow citizen would
be divided by various factors such as religion, location, race, ethnicity, social class and
historical background. The government’s failure to settle these disputes because of their
complexity will create a strong force against the government. The role of government will be
unrealistic and it will then demise and humankind fall into anarchy.
CHAPTER III
The bad about liberal democracy
To start with, in theory all human beings are born equal. In reality I am saying, people are born
with equal rights but potential to influence nature is disproportionate. To be fair, there is no
one who is born with rights but only privileges. If we all born with rights who then formulate
those rights. Maybe is the nature. There is nothing like inalienable rights under the sun. There
are only common laws, which are a product of nature. By deduction, all done in the name of
democracy is a fight against nature. It is not my intention to advocate for jungle law or tyranny.
I like justice; everyone can see it whenever it exists. Maybe justice is what you call democracy,
then I have nothing to condemn on that. My problem is with that sophisticated model of
democracy (liberal democracy), the rule by everyone or by no one. There are many
predicaments surrounding the understanding of the concept of liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy has no calculus; because of that, defining it requires too much art than
science. It is by no way one can define it without giving reference to America or Britain. By
deduction, what we are witnessing now is the Americanization of the world. Before going too
far, I wish to bring into your knowledge that I am not against the west but the westernization
of the world and the use of discriminative criteria in listing dictatorships, and the sovereignty
blindness character of the west. I am not advocating for anarchy or dictatorship anyway.
Nevertheless, the case remains the same I am anti colonialism. In addition, you have to
understand that, justice is sufficient but in some cases, too much justice is unjust, especially
under the case of liberal democracy, when the ruled rule.
To reduce the matter into a small scope, the majority rule is incapable of bringing the
humankind into peace. Liberal democracy entails the fulfillment of the interests of the majority.
I am not concerned about its discrimination of the minority, but its incapability to guarantee
and safeguard good morals within societies. In addition, I know many scholars have argued
about this point; I shall support it with an astonishing examples. A country in the southern part
of the world called Botswana having a voter turnout of 50 000, 45 000 vote for marriage age
to be at twelve and 5 000 vote against it. What would the government do? According to the
principles of liberal democracy then children will then be married at twelve. However, is that
good? Anyone trying to impede that then will be a dictator. I shall run away from this point as
quickly as possible to protect myself from becoming unpopular.
Most people live in the streets in developing countries simply because they cannot afford
building houses or paying rents. What if it becomes mandatory that everyone need to have his
or her own house? Shortage of resources impedes people to attain the standards they desire.
The same applies to liberal democracy. It seems mandatory that every nation must Americanize.
The poor cannot meet the standards due to financial constrains. Only liberal democracy, which
can be seen as proper, is the one consume large sums of money from national budgets.
Open your eyes to the fullest I am about to introduce a great debate on the concept of liberal
democracy. The concept of liberal democracy reduces the power of government and annexes it
to the citizens. Then how the government can control the entity with more power that it has?
Maybe there are disguised rights which can be withdrawn whenever the environment require.
Human Rights can be classified in to three categories quantified rights, limited rights and
absolute rights. I do agree that the first two categories are understandable. The last category is
controversial. Absolute rights are said to be enjoyed without any limitations; for example right
to life. How can we name them absolute rights while they can be withdrawn in some
circumstances? For example in the case of war, and or in some countries there are capital
punishments. From that, let me say then, these rights exists in theory but in reality, they do not.
I think the only human right that is absolute; is the right to think. No one can impede someone
from thinking but maybe providing for what to think of. There are no absolute rights; apart
from that one, I mentioned above.
Rule of law
As it stands for, no one is ruling but the law itself. Then the question comes; where the law
comes from? If from the citizens, then I say that, everyone rules. In analyzing this quality of
rule, it becomes then blatant that those people are in anarchy. People impose laws for
themselves and rule out what they do not want. From that, the role of the government is then
compromised. Secondly, can the law rule in its own without the law enforcement agents? If it
can rule without them then we must forgo with the law enforcement agencies. If the law
always needs to be complemented by the enforcement agencies then they are the ones who rule
since a document is incapable of controlling human behavior on its own. Maybe I am
misplacing the concept; let me try it from another angle. In illustrating my approach, I shall
start by a question; is law needed in ruling or, ruling is needed in law? To reduce the matter
into a small compass; what must come first law or lawmakers?
If law comes first, it comes from where? If lawmakers come first, where their power comes
from? We are living in a political world and politics have replaced law. Rulers use the
appropriate tools in running activities of the society; whether lawful or not lawful tools.
Logically, the unavoidable fact about law is that; it prohibits. Leaving aside bigotry, people have
right to everything and the law limit human actions to make a reasonable society. Imagine
removing all the laws from the state! I ask you, what kind of a society could exist?
In theory, the law is universal in scope and general in application. In reality, there is need for a
certain class of citizens to be above the law. Humans in a society are like player in a football
game, there is need for a referee who does not play the ball. I know you have a why question
on this. I reply, if all of us possess the same quantity and quality of rights everyone is then
incapable of controlling one another (a reflection of anarchy) The law always talks of equality
but there is no state without individuals with immunity, how can one referee the game at the
same time playing?. I do wish to end here on this issue.
Constitution
Let me start by giving my general definition of constitution, is an insufficient document with
ink, which represent in general citizen rights and privileges, and their relationship with the
government. Constitution is insufficient, in the sense that it fails to encompass all unwanted
and allowed actions. That is the constitution well known, but there are also unwritten
constitutions. This category of constitutions is controversial since the ruled cannot know
whether it complement the written constitutions or they are just the scapegoats of the rulers.
However, I am not going to discuss about unwritten constitutions I will just leave the floor for
those consider them to explain why they regard them as constitutions.
Constitutions give rights to citizens and the same constitutions withdraw those rights. For
instance the constitution of a certain country, (that I will not name) say all human being are
equal, latter the same document provide more attention to women. People in Africa are familiar
with these scenarios, the cutoff points for women in universities, their reserved seats in the
parliament, their exclusion from great suffering when they commit crimes for example capital
punishment. I am not against that, I am against those against actual equality. If that is what you
call equality then I have nothing to oppose on you, the constitution is regarded as the supreme
law of the land, which is, in some way the law of final reference. What will happen then if the
constitution fiasco to represent the actual course of action within the society?
Large sums of money are spent in constitution making processes and referendums. That is good
in the spectacles of a democrat. What is impotent, I think is the language used in the
constitution and nothing else. An unmistakable observation is that the people who put
information on the document (constitution) are the people who make law. In addition, the
constitution can be interpreted in various ways. There has never been a written law without
lacunas. I want no one misinterpreted this, written constitutions are crucial but much need to
be done, in their designing for them to fit our complicated societies. Contemporarily, the law
seems to benefit those who know it.
A human being is capable of doing anything even placing the hell on earth. Because of that the
constitution cannot by any means encompasses every permissible and prohibited action.
Drawing lines from that, a constitution needs to be long enough so that lacunas would be
limited. If elections within the society are free and fair, the elected is the true representative of
that certain society. That representative is entrusted with the duty of answering for his or her
subjects. From that, I see no reason for referendums besides wasting funds.
Elections
I am referring to periodic selection of leaders through ballot voting. I think this is a correct
method of selecting the leadership and there is no any other means, which can compete with
this system. Nevertheless, before flattering this system totally; it is being said that there should
be multi party systems in all states. Open your eyes and watch this, does a great abundance of
political parties’ shows democracy or dissatisfaction? Obvious, if the incumbent government is
doing justice it will be unthinkable of challenging it out. Multiparty system shows
dissatisfaction of citizens and at the same time reduces accountability arrangements due to
frequent change of regimes.
A civilized state needs to have neither a multi party system nor a single political party (one
party state). The state needs to have no political parties, but elections are a requisite to any state.
In modern political life, states with multi party systems are, in political correctness divided into
“your people” and “my people” divisions. People must have the right to vote, but for the
members of the house of assembly. Let me say, therefore, there is nothing more necessary
citizens need to vote about. You must, therefore know that those elected members of parliament
are a true representative entity of the represented. However, a member representing a
constituency cannot be a sufficient one whenever enters through an actus reus. From this
perspective, I say then elections must be free and fair. It is necessary, however to exclude
citizens who have little knowledge from the political playing ground. People with limited
knowledge on state matters are in most cases bad voters. They vote on assumptions not facts. As
I have said, I am not advocating for dictatorship, I am not against democracy, I am not saying
elections are unnecessary, but politics must be for politicians since football is for footballers.
Human rights
Humans are impotent, and they need not to be treated as mere animals. Humans have their
natural rights, I do not wish to leave out Romans 2 verse 14 as my reference “For when the
Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the
law, are a law unto themselves” Humans must be treated with respect and no one needs to be
killed no matter which type of a crime he or she commits. A guilt person must be given a
proper judgment, which by any means does not extend to death. Right to life is the supreme
right of humankind under the sun. Any government or individual who temper with this right
must be made to wish to die. The major role of the state is to safeguard human security.
Humans need to be treated in a just way, each crime must match with the punishment and no
one need to be punished for a crime in which it is not proven to be his or her handiwork. These
are the supreme laws of humans, and any other rights are of little impotence and it can be
debatable whether they are rights or privileges.
We are not perfect; as such, our leaders do face these blames. It is an acceptable fact that
humans are created equal. However, in practice, people are not at par. Some people are born
evil than others and they need regular monitoring and strict restrictions. Humans must be free
to say what is necessary not as one pleases as this works towards moral decadents and
insecurity. Citizens must be allowed to marry and have families but the approval must come
from the government to reduce suffering of the born children. Only people with a certain
amount of money and of the full age must be allowed to marry. Right to religion must not be
tempered with. People must be granted the right to religion. Well, people must be allowed to
worship but God only. Of all religions, Christianity can safeguard peace and security in the
human society. The right must be for an individual to choose the institution to belong to as long
as is a Godly one. The situation is becoming uncontrollable in the world due to the so called
right to religion. Anyway, I am not going to explain this Nigerians and people in multi religious
countries will explain it to you.
Limiting myself to crucial, I say then, anything that suppresses the freedom of a citizen must be
excluded from the history of man. I am not inaugurating brutality. My intention is to bring into
your knowledge that rights are not equal in impotence and everything done to the citizen by
the government must be appreciated since in actual terms the role of the government is to
make life long through bringing peace within and from outside the state and any other roles
are optional.
CHAPTER IV
Life in Anarchy
Romans 2 verse 12, “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as
many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law”. To be fair, the common feature of anarchy
is the absence of law. Then....? …. Then I replied, everything will be in its situational correctness, just.
Life will be dominated by massive wars among different entities within societies. There will be
use of weapons of mass destruction and there will be absence of laws. This period will be
characterized by conflicts among classes, religious groups and races. People will be in a state of
war in which each has the right to defend him or herself from the next person’s antics. There
will be peace of the brave. We are moving towards the greatest and most destructive episode in
the history of humankind. Power that is going to trigger this crisis is growing today.
Many states contemporarily have three major social classes, the upper, middle and lower
classes. The major conflicts will be between the two extreme groups; the upper and lower
classes. The middle classes are going to be destroyed to build up two major conflicting groups.
The haves will fight a reactive war, and the have not, a proactive war. Like what Max
advocated for, the lower classes will be seeking to bring justice since they will then see that the
past was unjust. Looting and eviction of property will be common. This scenario will be in this
direction if and if only the lower class is militarily sufficient. If they are going to be as weak as
they are in several societies, they are going to be laborers.
If they will only accept to be laborers, it does not mean absence of conflicts. This episode once
surfaced in Africa and other continents; where people were forced to work for the cruel
interlopers. That system managed to survive for some years because was applied to backward,
illiterate, unarmed moronic people. Due to improvement in technology, the system will be
aggressed at before fully implemented. These conflicts of interests will result in massive wars,
which will result in one dominant class, which will then govern in the second circulation of
regimes.
These conflicts are not only limited to state level but they will reach the international stage.
Members of the lower class in one state will coordinate with the member of the same class in
another country to fight the upper class. Weapons will cross borders on daily basis to liberate
the counterparts. Those circumstances are inevitable the poor will fights for their labor while
the rich for their wealth. This period is of concern to every individual under the sun since
everyone has something to lose. Unfortunately, this period is unavoidable but can only be
postponed to the future generations by taking a step back in the progressive circle of regimes.
Three major conflicting religions will confront one another directly. This will be so since the
laws, which impede evil from rocking the societies will be nowhere. The Islamic
Fundamentalists, Christians and Satanists will confront one another in the struggle for
domination. The ideological war will be transferred from the spiritual into an armed struggle
with universal conversion being the ultimate goal. The absence of laws will necessitates this
scenario. The Islamic fundamentalists like what they are doing at present, will be fighting a war
of aggression against its long time enemy Christianity. Repeatedly, in the speeches and writings
of influential Muslims religious conquest dominate their language. According to Koran (Sura
9:5),”when the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them,
besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them”. It will be a proactive strike move; on
the other hand, Christians will resort to reactive and in some instances pre-emptive strikes.
Christianity the only religion capable of surviving or creating peaceful environment will be in
trouble in that period. More information about this is within the pages of your bibles; I shall
not add or deduct from the bible, get this, “they shall deliver you to be afflicted, and shall kill
you; and ye shall be hated of all the nations for my name’s sake.” Mathew 24 verse 9. I do not
want to talk too much about this the bible is used by Christians I expect them to know who will
hate and kill them. Some are already down the ground simply because they were Christians.
The pages, which had never been opened, will be opened to justify the wars in the near future.
The struggle for domination in the religious world started since time immemorial but will start
to be violent to fulfill what the bible say. The nature of these conflicts was explained in the
pages of your bibles. Since the legislations become useless, there will be clash of religious
groups. This period is unavoidable but can be delayed from coming by tightening laws at
present so that the best religion (Christianity) will become strong so that it will be unshakeable
in anarchy.
In reality, God created man with the capability of doing anything. This means anything is
possible for a human being and is appropriate. Only thing done at inappropriate time is wrong.
This means time determine action otherwise everyone can do as he or she pleases. Killing
human being is evil and illegal but what is if it is done in a preemptive, defensive or under the
situation of war? Can you continue folding your hands in the state of war? Those with blood
thirst instincts you need to wait for a period of war, which is on our doorstep. If you will resort
to non-violence, your life will be too short.
A crime is an act done at the wrong time, and a crime only exist where there are laws. So what
if there are no laws? Automatically, there are no crimes. This means the period we are facing is
in theory cute one and in reality a true reflection of the hell.
CHAPTER V
Appropriate regime
The government must be made up of representatives from across the state who is elected by the
knowledgeable citizens from their constituencies through secret ballot voting. These
representatives will be entrusted with a duty to elect the president. This reduces the costs and
avoids time from lost. In reality, most people vote using emotions and assumptions not facts, it
them seems beneficial to eliminate those citizens so as to come up with good leaders. The
common criticism of democracy is that it gives room for the eloquent speakers, liars and vote
buyers at the expense of capable leaders. I am not saying the uneducated are useless do not
misinterpret me. Those with little knowledge about national affairs must be allowed to vote for
their local authority leader since in most cases they are aware of the issues within their
locations.
The role of the government shall be the safeguarding human life. It must by all means, impose
laws that bring into existence peace between fellow citizen and elimination of foreign invasion
at large. Those who violate laws must be punished appropriately after proper legal
proceedings. This is the supreme role of the government; all other rights and freedoms I think it
is optional for the government to or not observe. I am not saying the government is not
impotent in other sectors anyway. The government is required in many if not all sectors but it
must not be blamed if things go bad since it is not its major role. The government will be said to
be void and useless only if there is no existence of peace within the state.
Given the nature of my appropriate government, the greater proportion of the state’s funds
must be budgeted for the ministry of state security. I see it being the nerve centre of state’s
survival. Because of that, the government should pay attention on this ministry and is the
master of all departments. All other ministries are impotent but they must complement this
ministry for the government to carry out its intended role.
The government must be strong and assure citizens with security. However, the government
needs not to be too democratic as this may compromise its powers in bringing about order in
the state in the end. No one live in a liberal democracy expected to say he or she never lived in
anarchy. What a democracy does is that, it hives the power of the government and annexes it to
the citizens and at the end, the government would seem unnecessary. The governments in
democracy are being distanced from citizen’s lives. My intention is not to endorse dictatorship,
but a government with a certain amount of power. This is to say once the voters put their trust
in the representative, that official must exercise the power as it is with; minimal restrictions.
However these powers must not extent to evil antics. My assumption is that, that representative
would be chosen by the knowledgeable citizens and is rational. If the appropriate human is
chosen, I do not see any possibility of abuse of power.
Through diplomacy, the government must seek assistance from abroad and peacefully resolve
disputes. When war seems to be obvious, the government needs to resort to preemptive strike to
avoid your state from being the battleground. Always find ways to make the opponent’s
territory a venue for war. That is the art of “citizen loving government”. If there is nothing to
gain from that war, it seems wiser to appease in doing that the lives of the citizens and
resources will not go in vain. If there are gains from that war, then the outputs must reach all
the citizens to gain support in the future struggles. The perfect government never sent its
citizens to perish in foreign lands, in exchange for money. There is no substitute for life; the
government must regard its protection as its supreme role.
ABOUT THE AUTHOUR
Grant Wadyabere is my name. I am a student at Midlands State University, studying Bachelor
of Science in Politics and Public Management. My thoughts seem to be anti America, well, that
is in theory but in reality I am not against the west. I love peace and fair treatment of human
beings, if and if only it is for the long-term betterment of the future generations.
“A Stupendous Crisis Awaits Humankind” is a combination of my two articles (Democracy
heinous to Africa & Globalization detriment to Africa) in the Peoples Voice in the year 2013.
This copy is not the full one, and is amid perfections. The full copy will be officially published
soon. The information contained in this book is acatalectic my handiwork, in the case of
borrowed ideas I have been always acknowledged the author.
For comments, contributions and questions feel free to ask