Comparing Government Structures
Man has tried every kind of self-rule down through the centuries—everything from
monarchs ruling by right of birth to village tribe councils making decisions by firelight. The
American Constitutional Republic is arguably the world's biggest experiment in self-rule. It tries
to reconcile freedom and order, majority rule and minority protection, state power and federal
cohesion. To get some idea of how strange and brilliant it is, it is a good exercise to compare it
with other governments, both ancient and contemporary.
First there is monarchy. Authority in a monarchy usually passes down through a royal
family. Consider England before the times when Parliament was in power or France in the reign
of Louis XIV—monarchs with the belief that God anointed them to have such power. Compare
that to the U.S., which doesn't believe in the concept that power is inherited. Power, instead, is
through the people and the people pass such authority to leaders through the method of an
election. That concept, itself, is a gargantuan departure from centuries of royal power.
There's the old republic, like Rome's. Rome had elected representatives and a senate,
which shaped part of the American system. The Roman republic wasn't always equitable,
though—only a handful of wealthy men held sway. The U.S. attempted to do it better by creating
a system with greater representation, if only in theory. Voting rights have opened up to increasing
numbers of people over the centuries, but the process has never been perfect by a long way.
Direct democracy—such as ancient Athens used, or such as Swiss villages use
nowadays—is when the people as a whole vote directly on laws themselves. It can't really work
when you have a large, multi-cultural country such as the U.S. That's why the Founders set up a
republic, such that the people themselves choose representatives to make them decisions. It sort
of helps filter ideas through the process of discussion and compromising, though the down-side
comes at the pace of slowing everything down.
Authoritarian governments, conversely, are the exact opposite. Under authoritarian
governments, a solitary individual, or a dominant group of a select few, possesses the authority
and holds the reins—elections, media, speech. An example is today's North Korea. Under the
system of the United States, however, the three branches of government have a system of checks
and balances which effectively prevents a singular individual, or group, from becoming
all-powerful. Additionally, the Constitution sets boundaries, and the Bill of Rights protects
people's freedoms, e.g., the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
Socialist systems, such as the collapsed Soviet Union, attempt to keep everyone
economically equal by keeping the bulk of the resources as state property. While the U.S. has as
much as it does in such social programs as Social Security and public schools, it remains
capitalist first and foremost. Unlike attempting to have everyone have the same result, it values
freedom to prosper as the greatest.
Theocracies are those governed by religious leaders, or are significantly governed by
religious law—such as Iran today. America was founded to, in part, get away from government
like that. The freedom of religion as a First Amendment protection renders the country resistant
to government that would have a bias toward one religion over another. That separation of
church and state is one main reason that America differs from theocracies.
Third, tribal governments—such as Native American governments—provide an
alternative. Those governments often are based on consensus, tradition, and continuity of group
rather than written-enacted laws. They are not necessarily the same as governments today, yet
were—and are—based on values of respect, harmony, and joint leadership. As a matter of fact,
the Iroquois Confederacy was the inspiration behind the U.S. system of federalism. The U.S.
Constitutional Republic is not perfect, but it does strive to improve over the decades. Supreme
Court decisions, amendments, and activism are all manifestations of the ways in which the
system can be refined. It does not strive to be perfect at the outset—it strives to be "a more
perfect union." That is its theory: the government will be in the service of the people, and that it
will continue to improve.
