Friday, Oct 20th

Last update:07:55:50 PM GMT

You are here: Christian Doctrine Society and Culture Forms of Civil Government

Forms of Civil Government

E-mail Print PDF

There is no doubt about it – the form of government every country has depends on the philosophy behind its leaders, and not to the function of government. It is NEVER the philosophy, or even the wish, of the masses. It is always insinuated and manipulated by elites. If government was as it should be – functional – then there would be no problem with the personal philosophies of politicians, because their own desires would not have an effect on the people or the function of government.

As I have pointed out elsewhere in my comments on censorship, what we regard as censorship is only the tip of the iceberg – the real censorship is in those elites who choose what we may 'choose' from, even before we have an opportunity to choose! We never see the full list of options and can never choose freely!

The same happens in forms of government – the form we see is not what we rationally choose, but is the form that elites have put before us, with no other options. Elites maintain this restrictive practice by casting out of fellowship MPs and candidates who disagree with their policies, so choice is not an option. If each MP was independent and was directly accountable to voters, we would no longer have party politics but the wish of the people. Then we might see actual choices, if only during the 'honeymoon period', until more elites come along to ruin it!

Do not fool yourself by thinking our government is what we actually want. Elites are good at advertising and they will tell you that you need this or that, when you have never previously considered it. There are many forms of government, and most of them fail. Indeed, most of them are godless.

Think democracy is good? Think again! What about a republic? Think again. And, do you recognise the many new forms of communism or fascism in the world today, pretending to be good for the people? Just tap into the nerve centre of all these forms, and you will find a vicious knee-jerk, as those who claim to be 'one of us' are actually out for themselves. What you and I think or want is irrelevant to them: their systems are more important because they allow them power and money. Let us see what these many forms of government are. Consider each one and then come to your conclusion... as a believer, and not simply as a political sycophant whose allegiance is to man and a political party, and not to God.

Before we look at these various forms, let me remind you what happened thousands of years ago, when the Hebrews demanded a king...

Give Us a King...

Samuel was a great spiritual and civil leader of the Hebrews. Because of his sons' unholy abuse of their roles as judges of Israel, the people were, naturally, upset. It was then that they made a demand of the aged Samuel: "make us a king to judge us like all the nations." (1 Samuel 8:5; for more Bible study notes on this, see my study on 1 Sam. 8).

The reasoning seemed watertight. After all, the leaders they now had, the ungodly sons of the godly Samuel, were bad, and had to go. But, the desire for a king was against everything God wanted for the people. Samuel heard the demand: "Give us a king"! He prayed to the Lord, and what did He say?

Many Christians fondly think God will not allow us to suffer if we belong to Him... but they are fooling themselves. If God gives us His commands, and we go against them, He will allow us to go our own way, to suffer the consequences. And this is what He did when Samuel told Him of the people's wishes, though he was very angry with the people. (Of course, God already knew about their demand, but He required Samuel to articulate it).

God told Samuel to listen to the people and to give them exactly what they wanted! (Verse 7). He then told Samuel: "they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should no longer reign over them." This is the core of the issue. This determined what kind of government the people should have. God told the people what to expect, which would be less beneficial to them. Always, in every situation, whatever is without God is less than good, if not sin.

We might ask why people should choose what is of less benefit, but, really, we know – it is what people do when sin rules! They deliberately choose what is bad for them, whether it is governments, food, social company, partners, bad habits, or depression! It means they forget God and make human demands, knowingly reducing what God gives us to zero.

The only real rule of the people is God. In the case of the Hebrews, many were not true believers, and yet, because He had chosen them for Himself, God looked after them all as a nation. In this way the many benefited because of the will of God and the godliness of the few. Today, this is reversed, for the will of the few, the godless elite, brings damage to the many, often irreparably.

Though God's rule is the most beneficial and peaceful, few accept or want it, because of their sin. Rather, they think that by ridding society of everything godly, their society will grow happily and without restraint. Realistically, this was the great experiment of Marxism in Russia, and it failed miserably, bringing the country almost to its knees. The same 'experiment' is knowingly inflicted on Western societies by modern socialist elites, even though no Marxist regime has ever before given joy, peace or balance to any country! Instead, we are seeing gross decline, growing violence and immorality, more health problems, and so on.

But, will they then choose God? No – their sin has greater influence. This is why the USA, UK and Europe have governments hostile to the wishes of the people, destructive of their own economies and social norms. The people voted for them! They voted to accept lying, cheating, deception, immorality, higher taxes, lower standards... and that includes Christians who think they can vote for this or that party and get a better deal.

In reality ALL parties are the same in their aims despite outward appearances, and without strict controls, each voted-for politician will do the same things as all the others. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are so few as to not make any difference. Until EVERY Christian becomes wise, the situation will get worse and worse. Now let us look at the types of government. (We will not look at older forms, such as clanship, tribalism, etc).

Autocracy

This is another name for Totalitarianism/Authoritarianism/Dictatorship). This is shown in governments where one person rules everyone else, including other politicians. This means their power is almost unlimited. Most often, this kind is associated with despots and dictators.

Britain came under this kind under the 'New Labour' government, when Tony Blair, a so-called 'Christian Socialist', took total control, by threatening 'his' cabinet members with dismissal if they challenged his authority. Interestingly, when the combined Conservative and Liberal Democrats took their place in 2010, this group, too, assumed the role of autocrat, though with slightly more difficulty.

Therefore, the current form of government is, again, very close to being autocratic... oligarchic. Very often Marxist and Fascist governments tend to be autocratic, though they can also be oligarchic. Most large business concerns tend to be autocratic. The EU is also close, being oligarchic and definitely dictatorial.

Autocracy is very much simpler, because only one man tells everyone else what to do. He does not need opinions or committee-type decisions. That Britain came under an autocratic leader is interesting, because it clashes in principle with the fact that citizens vote-in its government.

Though interesting, it is also expected, because British voters have little hands-on influence, and do not really care, so long as it 'does not hit them in their pockets'. Thus, though elected, politicians in power quickly allowed their leader to take total control, turning the regime choice on its head, so that voters no longer had control or even an input.

In this kind of authoritarianism small elites can easily persuade the totalitarian leader – hence the severe incursion of homosexual laws and demands from a group that constitutes only 1% or less of the population. Blair acted in a despotic way by accepting every one of their demands without looking at them, or considering their effect on the remaining 99% of the population. This was a definite proof of his totalitarian spirit. However, this elitism is rampant in totalitarian governments, because policies are given by the dictator, but are not tested against public opinion.

Logically, totalitarians should not exist, but they do, bolstered and supported by people who loathe the totalitarian dictator, but who recognise that he is the source of their own power and income.

Dictators are in a lonely and dangerous position, and are liable to be assassinated, physically or verbally, by those who want to see them fall (to be replaced by another dictator). The people are also complicit, even if they hate the dictatorship, because they do not want to 'rock the boat' for fear of repercussions. Of course, there will be repercussions! Once these are over, there can be progress. But, ordinary citizens are ignorant of power, and rarely complain. Dictators can be tyrannical or paternalistic, but control is still central.

Stratocracy is rule by military chiefs. (Not the same as a military dictatorship). The law and state all support the leaders, so this form of authoritarianism is not strictly dictatorship (though there are caveats – see next section on choices and censorship). The state of Myanmar is a good example of this kind of authoritarianism. There are many more kinds.

Theocracy

Though this is regarded as authoritarianism, it is how we should be governed. Ancient Israel was the only genuine theocracy known to the world. Theocracy is government by direct divine guidance. It was extended to mean governance by priests. In Israel even its kings ruled by theocratic principles.

Rule by God should be normal, but as the majority of mankind are unsaved, we will never see this kind of government again. Most want release from theocracy because it means the existence of morality. Interestingly, the current immorality in society was groomed by sexual predators such as homosexuals. To increase their sexual preferences and wishes they firstly had to destroy the Christian basis of law.

And so secretly-homosexual politicians fought for decades to bring this about. In the process they demonised all things Christian, thus hiding the evils inherent in their own systems and making their own desires generally acceptable. Though theocracy is the best and only genuine rule, its effects are obscured by sinfulness in the people, who are led by vested interests.

Many today are afraid of theocracy because they think Islam is a role-model, which is erroneous. Islam rules by fear and violence, whereas theocracy as per scriptures rules by love and societal best interests, with no real statist content.

Oligarchy

This is similar to an autocracy, because power rests with a few. Russia was of this kind by way of Stalin, though it was a modified form, with a totalitarian on top, supported by a few inner-circle officials who supported the dictator in order to keep their own positions. Sometimes, as in, say, Middle Eastern countries, oligarchies are rife, as one or several families rule the people, usually distantly. In many ways political parties are oligarchic.

Like totalitarian dictators, oligarchies tend to be tyrannical, so the people are perpetually crushed and expected to be subjected to anything the leaders want. Oligarchies are usually formed by some kind of link – family, interests, etc. Or, as I tend to call them, 'elites', who obtain privileges by stealth or even legal moves created by the vested interests but not necessarily supported or even wanted by voters.

In modern Britain, for example, there is currently an oligarchy, simply because the people have allowed leaders to assume total control. It is not inconceivable for some within the oligarchy to give-way to another oligarchy, comprised of sexual deviants (homosexuals) or religious tyrants (Islam).

Already, government in Britain has an overly-high percentage of homosexuals, whose spokesmen say they want even more. The reason is obvious – once this oligarchy steals power, it can impose totalitarian rules on society as a whole, detrimental to society itself but of critical power to the oligarchy.

As this group climbs the ladder of power, along comes another totalitarian group – Islam – that also wants total power for a similar reason: fascist control of all, with severe penalties for those who are critical and dissenting. Amusingly, few commentators link oligarchy with modern day Europe and the USA, even though it is staring us in the face. The illegitimacy of claims made by these vested interests is proven by their determination to stamp out criticism by law, and not by proper means of argumentation.

Robert Michels writes that all political parties gravitate towards oligarchy, and this also goes for supposed 'democracies'. This is because the actual differences between parties is so small as to be insignificant; politicians, in an effort to keep their power and positions, impose rigid rules of leadership, restricting those who are for freedom to lower ranks, and self-electing those who will maintain the party order. In this way, they veer firstly towards oligarchy and then to totalitarianism with one leader. It is no wonder, then, that most leaders of this kind are referred to as 'Hitler' or as 'Nazi'. The description is correct! In the West this is particularly evident in a growing move towards a police state, made necessary by the dictatorial policies of government.

To try and remove this gravitational pull towards totalitarianism, the early Athenians did not elect leaders but made them draw lots. This helped to prevent 'professional' manipulators (like modern politicians) from gaining office for their own ends. Of course, any such leader can be subverted if they have no morality or ethical stance, as we see today. So, even these precautions can be circumnavigated.

The only real check in a secularised world must be the people... unless the prevailing philosophy is one of relativity. (This, however, is only second-best. The only true check is God and His word, because people, though intending to act wisely, usually sink into whatever mess is created for them by vested interests, such as homosexuality, Islam, or environmentalism – the three major powers in the world today, through deception or force).

The dangers of this people-rule are very obvious: fashions and not truth prevail. One form of authoritarianism is dictatorship by the proletariat – communism. It is a very strange structure: the proletariat convince themselves they control everything, but they are themselves controlled by an oligarchy, the party core, who are themselves controlled by a totalitarian dictator!

This is proof of what I say, that censorship begins not with the choice of the people, but with the predetermined choices given to the people by dictators and elites! Unable to fathom when they are being duped, and through lack of understanding, the people choose what they want from their predetermined list of choices, and so whatever choice they make promotes the choices already made by the elite or dictator! It is usually how most large businesses operate, turning union and other representation into a sham.

Geneva, under Calvin, was a virtual oligarchy, but theologically based, thus being close to a theocracy. In reality, Calvin had an immense presence but was not a sole ruler, so it is unfair to suggest that he was. This theological oligarchy remained for a very long time after his death.

Anarchy

Anarchy exists where there is no ruler and no imposed authority. In such a state, people may do whatever they wish, though this does not necessarily imply social disorder (the ideal).

But, because of the nature of men, disorder usually ensues, with lawlessness. In Britain, for example, many young people are anarchic, within an oligarchic structure. They have no fear of authorities and openly despise and fight them. Others, like homosexuals, create their own oligarchy through government, in order to maintain their true desire to be anarchic!

The theory behind anarchy is that without an authoritarian government all people would come together and act wisely for the good of all! Theorists argue that human nature would ensure the right and balanced conditions that lead to individual morality, ethics and behaviour. What an error, and what blindness!

In many ways anarchy is to be preferred to what we now have - totalitarianism - for it eschews interference from a government. But, in reality, such a condition will never be reached, because people would live by their sin, not by wisdom. Even so, if I had to make a choice between the two, I would have to choose* anarchy to statism, though both ultimately end up ruinous... at least in anarchy one is responsible for his own ruin! Shocking? Not really. The patriarchs lived anarchically as far as politics was concerned, and were theocratic in principle. Often, their theocratic mind fought against prevailing statist concerns, resulting, in some cases, in war. (*Tongue-in-cheek).

One form of anarchy is Ochlocracy, or rule by mob. A similar idea is found in the Latin, 'mobile vulgus' (from which we get our word for 'mob'), which means 'fickle crowd'. This is when large numbers of people make their own rule by passions and own wishes, sometimes intimidating the legitimate authorities. These may be termed 'flash-point rulers', because they are driven by uncontrolled emotions. Football crowds that turn violent are of this kind, a temporary rule against police and government, but potent.

Thus, ochlocracy is democracy (rule by the people' turned nasty! This is called Demagoguery or 'tyranny of the majority'. The homosexual factions attempt to make their factional pre-determined choices the democratic norm, by continuously presenting itself as an underdog, though it is in control. If this wish, to get its way through democratic means, comes about, we will not have democracy but demagoguery, a tyranny against Christians and all who are critical. This evil is already coming about in the West.

One form of anarchy is Tribalism, where certain ethnic or cultural entities separate themselves from others because of their perceived distinctiveness. Very clearly, many Islamics are therefore Tribalistic, who see only their own kind as 'people', and all others as lacking in legitimacy. This is borne out by the refusal of Islam to accept the place of Jews and Christians in the world; it is why Islam wants to obliterate Israel and Christians. Invariably, Tribalism incorporates violence in its culture.

Other types of anarchy include communism and collectivism, the kind found in current moves to make everything communal, as in the externally-benign 'Transition Movement' inherent in environmentalism. Though gaining ground by communal agreement, it is actually based on hidden totalitarianism, as present laws on green issues prove. It is created not by facts and truth but by lies and deception, which, again, proves the elitist foundation for all or most governances.

The totalitarianism of this movement will only be revealed when all policies are geared towards it and it has control. This is known as 'Green Anarchism', which turns everything backwards towards the past, eliminating progress and technical achievements. Many useless or unacceptable taxes are based on their wishes, and these are issued as laws by a foreign government, the European Union. From this ideology comes nudity, vegetarianism, sexual promiscuity, hatred for capitalism, etc.

Democracy

This is the "yeah, right!" section!!

Democracy is when government comes from the people or consensus. This is done by elected representatives or by referendum. Though Britain pretends to be democratic, it is not. Britain is now run by totalitarianism through either a dictator (as in Tony Blair) or by a refusal to accept any public interference, through an oligarchy.

The current British government (2011) is of this kind, so it is classed as a 'Totalitarian Democracy', because the people who vote have no say in what is done by government. In this way the government does and says whatever it wishes. The dangers in this are obvious, especially as immorality is now the base-line for politicians as a whole. Yet, voters are unaware of this relationship, because it is not convenient to advertise what rule really means.

In Britain the people vote-in its representatives, who promptly disregard the wishes of voters, and act in a totalitarian way, foisting their own wishes on the electorate. As a very large number of politicians are homosexual and pro-Islamic, this spells disaster for Christians. This is because very small minorities override the majority of the people, and impose their own wishes on the public through already unbalanced politicians. Thus, in Britain, there is no rule by the people, but rule by totalitarians, the elites. One major sign of a democracy is equality under law. This is no longer the case, for minorities rule over the majority, and make Christians an under-class to be ignored or attacked. There is no equality.

Another feature of democracy is that anyone can put themselves forward for election. This does not happen in Britain, where applicants for election are vetoed first. If they do not match the Party policies exactly then they are rejected. Only those who will adhere to the Party policies are chosen as candidates. So, everyone in a party are rubber-stampers and not actively conscientious. This is, then, rule by elites, not by the people. It ensures that only elitist policies are put forward as rule or as law.

It means there is no equal access to power, and this is reflected in unequal laws protecting a minority, and harming the majority, as in pro-homosexual laws and policies. So, this is another proof that democracy is ignored by our modern 'democracy'.

Another sign of democracy is freedom of expression and of the media. Neither now apply, and are penalised by law, as the country moves inexorably towards full and open totalitarianism. If you get the impression that democracy is the needful method of rule, then you are mistaken. It is yet another condition that is second-best, because the people are mainly unsaved, and unsaved people have no true notion of what is free, or best, or excellent. We will see this when homosexuality manages to persuade most of the people that their cause is good, which automatically will infer that the Christian cause is bad and harmful, even though the actual facts deny such a claim and cover up harm done by the minority. (They can do this because politicians and the media refuse to allow open debate and presentation of ALL the facts).

Some of these groups push for 'civil liberties' as if all are equal, which they are not. We can ask a logical question: If all the people felt it right to murder, will murder then be good? The same question may be asked of homosexuality and Islam, both of which are trying to impose themselves on society as a whole, thus negating one of the principles of democracy, of which there are many kinds and forms.

Republicanism

There is really very little difference between democracy and republicanism. In this form of government a nation is ruled by a head of state usually elected by the people (e.g. a President). But, as with the other forms of governance, it can be manipulated. Hitler was initially elected to this end. So was the usurper, Barack Obama. But, once elected, both became totalitarian dictators, as did Tony Blair.

The idea of Republicanism arose mainly from the failure or deposition of monarchy, which was the subject of radicalism. In many cases, republicanism rode on the back of socialism.

It is said that Oliver Cromwell ruled as a near dictator over a republic, but this is to ignore the actual facts. In essence he had no choice in the matter and the details show a lack of genuine republicanism or dictatorship in the man. Historical republicanism would need many more words to describe, so we will go on to modern Republicanism...

In Britain, the result of liberalism and republicanism led to a removal of the monarchy from active leadership. In America, it has led to outright totalitarianism. In other words, what begins as one form of government usually slides towards another form. Indeed, throughout the world republics and democracies are all heading towards an unholy mix emanating as rank socialism combining Marxism and Fascism.

In each and every case this mixing has been made possible through deception of the people by politicians voted-in by voters. In America Cass Sunstein influences its so-called 'republicanism'. (See my column in Canada Free Press for an article on this man). It seems extremists are now in charge of the lunatic asylum known as American politics.

Republicanism replaced inherited rule, especially of monarchs. But, the resultant rule is hardly any better, with a severe increase in statism. The American and French revolutions, filled with flowing blood, are just one example of its failure. And in essence republicanism is merely an amended form of democracy – there is almost no difference! In both cases, it is elites who rule and not the people. And also in many cases the rule is by unelected aristocrats whose inner circles perpetuate the worst excesses of the elites.


 

The types and forms of government can be divided and sub-divided into many more sub-kinds, but the above give a good idea as to prevalent types.

The main thing to remember is that no matter what type or form the government takes, it is never representative of the people, or of God, both of whom are despised and ignored by rulers.

Every government, whether state, business or any other group, is ruled either by an elite or by one person. All efforts are aimed at sustaining that rule, and providing for its own interests. This is why minorities (elites) rule in the West, and why the European Union rules all countries in its grasp. The EU has its own elites, who control the ruling elites (puppet rulers) in each member country. In this way the wishes of the people are doubly-ignored and resented.

Because of this elitist structure of governance, minorities ignore the people and go straight to the 'head of the well', the elites or dictators, to implement their strategies. Thus, we find sudden legal impositions placed on the people, mostly unknown to them during the law-making process. We are moving towards a socialist world mind, in which usual definitions do not apply and the variety of forms of government are transcended by totalitarianism.

Whatever the form of government, Christians MUST demand truthfulness, honesty and morality from leaders. There must be expected and demanded, regardless of beliefs and religion, or none. If they are not demanded then rulers can become despots and immoralists, leading the country down a dangerous and deathly slope. We may NOT vote for parties that openly defy God or bring hatred upon His people.

Christians have every duty to obey the form of government UNLESS what is demanded acts against God's commands. IN such cases we may NOT obey government, but have a duty to reject it and act accordingly.

 

---oOo---

Published on www.christiandoctrine.com

Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
Wales
United Kingdom

Please 'Make a Donation' to support the work of Bible Theology Ministries