In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes formulates his theory of the Hobbesian Jungle, the idea that humanity naturally lives in a state without rules or moralities, so we broker societies and governments to evade the inherent dangers of said state of nature. Hobbes’ theory, however, begs the ultimate question: Which form of government should be in place?
While the definition of government, “the act or process of governing,” naturally makes individuals cringe, I do not think we could function as anarchy, a state of lawlessness. It is not necessarily because humans will resort to pillaging, raping, and murdering (although I am sure some will) without rules to keep them in place, but simply because we will not progress, better yet, survive without a governing body present. We need a head that determines and a body that executes. Anarchy, though, states that there should be no head. Nevertheless, that is not to say we need a “big-headed” government like fascism, “a way of ruling that advocates total control of the people and seeks to promote ancestral and cultural values and eradicate foreign influence.” The phrase “Big Brother is watching you” from George Orwell’s 1984 should forever haunt and remind people of the dangers of a fascist regime, where even a person’s thoughts are not their own but the Party’s.
The type of government that every country should implement, which would be the least dystopian, is a representative democracy. People elect their officials, and those politicians advocate for their constituents and their wellbeings. Of course, that is better said than done, as we clearly and currently see politicians making false promises and being swayed by monetary gains. Still, the idea of representative democracy is not a bad one. It relieves the burden of everyone being in charge of their political affairs as a direct democracy, decentralizes the power of fascism, and provides order and structure to anarchy.