Do people need governing?
That is the question that we try to answer every time we contemplate the whole election process. The answer lies in contemplating what might happen if we were not governed by the law of the land.
As a species we have evolved to the point that individuals can ascertain what is beneficial to them and their loved ones. In achieving that level of comfort for themselves they seek to extend their sphere of influence in many ways big and small.
While pushing this sphere outward or inward, what is beneficial to one can and at times tends to be encroaching on another's sense of freedom and enjoyment at which point the conflict of interest arises.
Resolution to such conflicts big and small, local or global, regardless of color, caste, nationality tend to be matters requiring intervention from an astute and experienced individual or a group equipped to navigate the challenge.
People believe in the concept (in a democractic society) of allowing the elders (people with said experience) to claim their desire to lead (and in the process extend their own sphere of influence and comfort by consequence) and govern others that are not so equipped in the hope of satisfactory outcomes.
This is a gross simplification of what should be happening in the world we live in as any citizen impacted by the changes happening around us can tell.
Many ills of modern society in the so called first world (third world has so much chaos it is not going to fit on this blog) nations are attributable to new generation wants colliding with the availability in terms of governing talent.
While some might consider the new generation to be more tech savvy; connected and concerned I tend to find that we are actually experiencing unprecedented levels of attention deficit, instant self gratification, disconnected from reality and warped sense of entitlement embracing type of societal propogation.
Will elections lead us out of this?
I wonder.
That is the question that we try to answer every time we contemplate the whole election process. The answer lies in contemplating what might happen if we were not governed by the law of the land.
As a species we have evolved to the point that individuals can ascertain what is beneficial to them and their loved ones. In achieving that level of comfort for themselves they seek to extend their sphere of influence in many ways big and small.
While pushing this sphere outward or inward, what is beneficial to one can and at times tends to be encroaching on another's sense of freedom and enjoyment at which point the conflict of interest arises.
Resolution to such conflicts big and small, local or global, regardless of color, caste, nationality tend to be matters requiring intervention from an astute and experienced individual or a group equipped to navigate the challenge.
People believe in the concept (in a democractic society) of allowing the elders (people with said experience) to claim their desire to lead (and in the process extend their own sphere of influence and comfort by consequence) and govern others that are not so equipped in the hope of satisfactory outcomes.
This is a gross simplification of what should be happening in the world we live in as any citizen impacted by the changes happening around us can tell.
Many ills of modern society in the so called first world (third world has so much chaos it is not going to fit on this blog) nations are attributable to new generation wants colliding with the availability in terms of governing talent.
While some might consider the new generation to be more tech savvy; connected and concerned I tend to find that we are actually experiencing unprecedented levels of attention deficit, instant self gratification, disconnected from reality and warped sense of entitlement embracing type of societal propogation.
Will elections lead us out of this?
I wonder.
Comments
Post a Comment