In recent class discussion, we have delved into the topic of governments themselves being dystopian. Of course, one could argue that governments are, in themselves, dystopian due to the corrupt and sometimes extreme forms they take. Governments can be beneficial by providing structure, rules, and order to human nature, which can run free and become corrupt if not guided by rules. However, they can also be harmful and malicious, if allowed to run unchecked. Knowing that this dichotomy exists, one begins to wonder: “What government would be the least dystopian? And how do you even go about determining such things given the subjectivity of it all?” Of course, this is not really an objective way to do this, but according to my definition, the least dystopian government would be one which prioritizes its citizens, equitable human rights for all, and an economy that is influenced not by whatever yields the most profit, but which addresses the needs of its people and benefits its people over anything else.
So, I scoured a Wikipedia article containing a list of forms of government, and I tried to find one which would meet my criteria, potentially exceeding it. Ultimately, I settled upon an oligarchy, specifically a meritocracy. I believe that governments can work and benefit their people, but the problem is often that the people in those government positions are not qualified. In a meritocracy, officials are selected based on their knowledge in a particular area and their contributions to society. By having people with the knowledge necessary in the positions necessary to address certain social issues, ideally, the “problems” would cease to exist. Of course, this does come with a threat of abuse of power, the subjectivity of who has the knowledge necessary excluding those who would contribute positively to the wellbeing of society, and create barriers for social mobility (if knowledge is not accessible). This is why my ideal government would likely be a hybrid creation of sorts where a republic and a meritocracy would be one and the same. These concepts are supposed to go hand-in-hand, but they do not due to the limited knowledge the public has about politics and nepotism. But inevitably, I guess this is the case with many forms of government.
Pontificator, Overthinker, Lover of Witty Banter.
Is this thing on?