A discussion on BBC podcast made me ponder. As we travel through the pages of history and examine the different kinds of governance we look at some interesting facts. Once upon a time there was monarchy- It favored the monarch and his allies and everything else was subjective. If the monarch was good, it could all end up well and if he/she was bad then everything at her/his mercy. More often than not monarchy ended up as a terror for the masses. Probably to reduce the uncertainty feudalism developed which was like several small monarchies but unfortunately the level of torment only increased while monarch being a single person could trouble only a certain number of people but feudal lords with their small influence of power could find their own sphere to be troubled. Then there came Democracy, also came the Capitalism which said democracy can't exist without it. It said profit was the motivation for people to strive to become better, it would give equal opportunities to everyone. Today inspite of all it's conditions being fulfilled we see more disparity than ever. We see mistrust, we see the top 20% using the 80% of resources and the rest left with nothing, we see mistrust, we see contempt, we see wars to fuel the consumption, we see destruction. One thing we don't see is the equal opportunity that was promised. Then there was Communism, which said it would even out all the differences. But with no profit motive, force became the only thing that could held the system. Then there was trouble, it fueled the same inequalities which it was supposed to even out. Somewhere in between also came the military rule, monarchy in a new form.
Thousands of years since the dawn of civilization as a species we haven't found a way to govern ourselves. Which ever form of government it might be it inevitably came out with the same results, power in the hands of few trouble for the rest from a very distant view. The intention is not to say that it doesn't matter being at the mercy of a few hundreds/thousands is definitely better than being at the whims and fancies of one maniac. It definitely builds in that additional bit of security and hope that even if one fails the other might not.
Continuing this line of thought I can only wonder if we as a species are capable of "governing" ourselves. Probably the attempt is futile as the human nature is contradictory to the principle of governance. Probably the folly lies in the brain and all kinds of permutations would end up with the same result? Probably inspite of all the claims of evolution we still haven't cracked that bit.