Wow, how much bandwidth do we have? This could be a long one.
First, let's start with the individual. A collection of self governed, self disciplined individuals is required for the success of any large undertaking. In order for this to be possible, there must be a few foundational rights which, collectively permit individuals to have something of self to govern. Such rights must be founded upon a rather unqualified belief that individuals, generally, have the ability, desire and duty to govern themselves. This takes us quickly to a set of shared beliefs as to the nature of man. The expression of this will be pretty directly linked to how man has come into existence and it is here that morality and ethics are established.
So, we have, as the ideal, a group of people with shared beliefs that they have come into existence in a manner which sees them with both the ability and duty to govern themselves, but seeking to accomplish something greater than themselves. Where this comes to be, the individuals will agree to release some of their individual freedom I order that the objectives identified can be realized. This, of course, sees us now in some form of democracy with limited collective governance.
A central government, founded by self governed individuals can do well whatever might be the tasks given to it so long as the people who gave it authority consent to its tasks and methods for achieving them as well as their support for the entity. So, there must be individuals, with the ability, desire and duty to govern self who have identified certain tasks which cannot be realized without conferring upon a central body some of the right to govern and the central body must be limited in authority to that which it has been granted authority. This gets us to a constitutional democracy. If large enough, the practical implications may see representative forms of governance a necessity. This, is what I think is the ideal. However, history gives us few chances for such to be realized in the order I have set out. The commentary about our nation which must follow would not be complimentary in that we have had this, but abdicated much of our right to self governance. As to other nations and peoples, history gave them the remnants of the strong man. The people under the strong man have pulled much authority from him and he has realized an inability to maintain any legitimacy without releasing authority, but such people have generally failed to embrace the concept of coming into existence in a manner which sees them, individually, capable of governing themselves.
As this is a Christian forum, we can easily assert that God created us with the ability and duty to govern ourselves, this being hampered by our sinful nature. We can see in the story of Israel several things which touch upon governance. First, there must be vision and purpose. Second, individuals have freedom and responsibility, both do which should be encouraged and renewed. Third, we, collectively, can't discipline ourselves, maintain our vision or submit properly to God. Fourth, and this is the one of greatest curiosity, we want an earthly King, a strongman who will make everything okay. I think these things were clearly demonstrated by the ancient Jews and is being proven, through the American experience, to be pretty universal.
I don't know if it can be said that I answered your question directly, but I do hope you will have found within that I attempted to respond to that which was asked.
, that we do have, at the moment. Is there some Biblical evidence that we should be trying to change that? Either way, we're still faced with the question of whether the hearts of people change from the top down, through legislation, or whether governments change from the bottom up, by being answerable to the people.
