We first considered the possibility of discarding the government entirely. While this opened up a few interesting possibilities within the current the Canadian society, it was quickly shot down on account of human nature and history. When we consider Marxism, the only concept of society without social class to ever manifest in any sort of major movement, it is evident why a state without government is simply not sustainable. People often refer to China or Russia as communist states but in reality, their government more closely resembles that of fascism ideals. The reason for this is that humans are collectively neither diligent nor intelligent enough to maintain a prosperous society without any form of guidance. This creates a certain amount of chaos and uncertainty that eventually leads to a leading party which preaches (but not necessarily practices) the interests of the people emerging to fill the power void. Similar to how impartial caring is unrealistic, Marxism relies on humans being naturally good enough to work selflessly at maximum efficiency for the benefit of others and society as a whole; something that simply can’t be expected from the majority of the population.
Next we consider the other side of the spectrum; totalitarian rule. If there’s one concept that all the ancient Chinese philosophers seem to agree upon, it’s that heaven’s mandate grants one individual absolute authority over the state. It’s interesting that while all these philosophers have different schools of thought, when it comes to the structure of society, they all seem to be confounded within the idea trying to prosper under one monarchy. We agree that just like any form of social structure, a totalitarian government has its merits. However, its flaws seem too glaring on a fundamental level to suggest a sustainable society particularly within the modern Canadian society. We can begin by examining the basis of heaven’s mandate. Throughout history, men have established totalitarian rule in the name of a higher power so this is not a concept that only applies to early Chinese civilizations. Mozi describes heaven’s mandate as the will of heaven and the ruler as the son of heaven who was chosen to impose this will and because the son of heaven is the only one who understands heaven’s morals, what he decides to be right and wrong must be the will of heaven and thus followed by all the people. (11, Mozi, 66-67 Ivanhoe) This form of thought outlines the precise problem within a totalitarian rule where one person has complete control over moral righteousness and major decisions within the state. In Mozian thought, if the state prospers then heaven’s will is being properly followed; if the state suffers from poverty and calamity, then the ruler has lost the will of heaven. (26, Mozi, 90-93, Ivanhoe) However, this explanation only creates more irony within the system. If the leader is only human how can he be sure that his interests are aligned with heaven’s interests and more importantly, if heaven is almighty, how can it fail so many times throughout history to select a proper enforcer of its will? Mencius offers a slightly different explanation; describing the mandate of heaven as the will of the people. When the ruler is favored by the people, they are following heaven’s mandate and if he falls out of favor, the mandate is also lost. From this explanation, Mencius seems to be more in favor of the ruler working in the interests of his people rather than the ambiguous “will of heaven.” Once again, it calls the concept of heaven’s mandate into question. If the heaven’s mandate is indeed the will of the people, logically, it’s odd that the person chosen to impose this will is decided by fate rather than the people. Even more preposterous is the fact that this mandate can be passed down from the ruler to his children or relatives. The issue becomes that if the fundamental basis (Heaven’s mandate) of justifying totalitarian rule is so questionable to begin with, how can the system maintain a long and prosperous society? History seems to echo our concerns as we see almost every great totalitarian kingdom or dynasty eventually falling into poverty and ending with bloodshed. Ultimately, a system that relies solely on the morality and intelligence of a single human being is too easily exposed and raises too many concerns to be implored in our modern day society.
In the end, this leaves us with democracy, but not in the form it already exists in Canada today. Heaven’s mandate or not, we like Mencius’ idea that the leader of the state should act according to the will of the people and we also think that the people should have the freedom to choose their leaders. What we dislike however, is the form of democracy that has been adopted by so many countries today including Canada. The parliamentary system was designed so that one party elected by the majority acts in the interest of the state and its people while opposing parties aim to criticize any flaws within the actions of the party in power. In theory, this should minimize the issues within government policies and projects while ensuring the most beneficial result for the state. However, in practice, what we see is a lot of criticism and discussion while very little progress is actually made. We attribute this fault to both how the system is designed and also the nature of human beings. In order for the parliamentary system to function efficiently, both the party in power and the opposition parties must act purely for the benefit of the state. While it is true that conflict arises from all parties having different visions of what is truly optimal, the bigger problem lies in the true goal of every party which is to eventually come into power. In democracy, a party must win the majority vote of the population to rise to power but if the actions of the current party in power is overall beneficial for the state and people are generally happy, then there is no reason to place a new party in office. This is where the problem begins; a simple fact is that almost all laws, projects and policies passed by the government is bound to have both negative and positive impacts. In other words, someone has to lose. In order for society to advance, it is the government’s job to push for policies and projects that result in the majority being winners and then balance out the losses in future. Under the current system, we too often see opposition parties aim to earn the favor of the people by only exaggerating the negative aspects of a proposal to please those in discontent of the government and also to mislead the general public by only focusing on short term losses when the proposal could be very beneficial in the long run.
Our version of democracy takes a simpler stance by abandoning the parliamentary system and placing a head of state at the top along with four government ministries: Education, wealth, health and law. Both of the head of state and the four ministers are voted for directly by the people and it falls on the head of state to ensure that the four ministries are working in the best interest of the majority. Each government cycle will remain in office for four years of which the people can best serve as the direct critics of the government’s success. We feel that this form of democracy retains the freedom of the people to choose their representatives but also allows the government to function more efficiently. We believe, as described in the previous section, that the government should be responsible for establishing and improving on a society where all of its people are provided with the tools to succeed and that when the government actively acts in the benefit of the state, the prosperity of the people will naturally fall into place. In the following articles, we will be focusing on the five ministries and certain changes that we feel should be put in place that will improve the current Canadian society.