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

https://plus.google.com/108365683873216259038/posts

grantwadyabere12@gmail.com