The type of government I have often thought could be ideal would be based on the old model of the United States union. However, eliminate the fed. For matters concerning international economics and national security, a pair of governors from each state participates as part of a parliament, without the current powers to tax and administrate over all states collectively which is possessed by the federal government. Here is where I diverge. Each state should have one ecclesiastical hierarchy and one secular hierarchy. Each of the main offices is occupied by two members, one from each hierarchy respectively. Therefore, high level members of the Church in each state are necessarily also a government office. It is up to the secular and ecclesiastic offices to negotiate and arrive at conclusions discursively. Whether or not the Church as a unified body has a papacy is a matter for the Church - I'm speaking only of a kind of isomorphic structure formed by the Church to serve as the mirror image of government in all states, so that a representative of the moral order is involved at each level of political office.
So a pyramidal hierarchy still exists in each state of the union, but you could imagine two heads at each level for each state, one from the Church and one elected as per traditional methods.
Of course, there are problems here as well, such as how to negotiate appointments on the ecclesiastic side as well as loss of office and transition of power. We get into trouble possibly if there aren't 'term limits', right? Additionally, a 'democratic' style of vote wouldn't seem to suffice for appointing members to the Church hierarchy so we'd face the tension arising from voters potentially feeling unrepresented by the 'Church-half' of each political office.
I obviously haven't spent a great deal of time on this because it's unlikely to ever happen.
I obviously haven't spent a great deal of time on this because it's unlikely to ever happen
It's still good fun to exercise the mind with hypotheticals. The debate between a dictatorship, democratic and oligarchical system has been one that has raged throughout the history of man. It really is an interesting conundrum, one that may not have a right or wrong answer considering they have all succeeded many times and for many reasons, yet have all failed.
If I understand there were three central banks, two of which were abolished. One by Jackson, which is probably why he is slandered in the mainstream media. His successor has actually the one who committed the infamous "trail of tears" of the cherokee that they tout out constantly. Every time these banks were abolished, the nation entered a golden age. The fed absolutely needs to go.
Interesting system, there would definitely be deadlock and issues between the two paradigms though, to the point that there would likely be civil war and the suppression of one of these branches, as what happened in the war between federalists and anti-federalists in 1861. Unfortunately, I think the theocratic side would lose and the system would be eventually ruled over by the secularists unless money is absolutely uninvolved in the politics. Secularists are always driven by money.
Regardless, term limits are a must in any sort of democratic order.
(post is archived)