Government that Works

Government That Works

Every global citizen would have a point of view about their nationhood. In expressing that they would often paint a wider range - could be better, it is great, how I wish, will it ever change?, just look at that (another nation), it's so full of crap! The true expression of a nation is not one that is relayed or articulated by experts. Its truest expression is what people share amongst one another in private. As one looks around the people from the various countries, it appears that we have a divide between a set of people, on the one hand, who believe that they are safer, more secure and have the power to prosper guaranteed by their Governments; and then there are people who feel forsaken, on the other. It is not absolute. For there would be citizens in the first segment, who would have plenty to be disappointed with just as much as in the latter group to be proud of. Overall however, majority sense is what may discriminate between the won and the forsaken. Nationhood is beyond I guess the economics, politics, academics or the socionomics. It is also beyond civilisational and cultural backgrounds or directions. Whereas there would be experts with research and academic background who would critically analyse a national environment and give reasons for the good or the bad, there would be commentators who most often toe the line of their public political image. In the real sense of the word, would it not be culmination of practices, standards or benchmarks established over time? Those that are first set beyond the state of its current environment, and when followed in the right earnest over time get established as a way of life. England stood for best judicial practices. Sometime in the past the nation must have decided to be better practitioners of judiciary than the current judicial practices around the world. And over time they must have wanted to do that better, and as a result, the practice converted into a well established system. That does not mean they would not err. Or that they would alway stay board. But overall they would be the pillar for benchmarking the best practices. And more that system flourishes, the stronger the pillar would be, letting a civilisation evolve around a simpler belief or an aspiration. Judiciary alone does not carve a nation, or craft its vision. A lot of other practices must follow that. However, if you take pride and be recognised for one good practice, chances are that many other practices would take similar shape, and together they make a wholesomely evolved environment. Politics and economics since the time of Chanakya or the Roman empire, have been best partners. They are almost like the man and the woman making a home. So why would politics and economics not breed as best partners? In breeding they have permitted the foul: ranging from grants, favours, privileges and royalties. In common terms they may be classified as misappropriation, malpractice or corruption and further crime. There is no nation in the world that can keep itself at bay from having engaged directly or indirectly in influencing the criminal side of people management or governance. However, as it appears, there are a few nations around the globe that have been severe in two consistent practices: One, that despite the levels of their Government's indulgence or interference in the crimes of politics or economics, they would have ensured that their common citizen are totally guarded from it. Two, that despite the economic or political cycles, their people are never deprived of an opportunity to prosper. From that perspective, the United States most certainly leads the pack. There would be several instances of its Government reasonably or unreasonably being acquitted in the practice of violence, crime or diktats in societies outside their geographic territory. Some of them have occurred out of their own ignorance about the world outside. Some borne out of the American philosophy to take the opportunity to be. Some from a belief that leadership is not about making the whole world equal, but providing the canvas to be equal. America is a very difficult area to be debated, as people would have several arguments. But also because success carries a wider scope for criticisms. The underlying truth however is that the people of the United States are the most protected by its Government. And then would follow most European nations: mostly those in its western corridors. Of course, Australia and New Zealand. Brazil or Chile. Yet strangely a few nations in the Middle Eat, in particular, Saudi Arabia, nations comprising ASEAN, and some in Africa like Zambia, Ghana, Mozambique, Kenya or Tanzania. On the other side of the canvass are plenty who are marooned in suffering. Mostly for a simpler reason that their Governments have never wanted to be the way for a change. If Zambia found that they did not have an infrastructural layout to feed homes in its interior districts with electricity, they found a quicker new way. Giant sound proof generator vans that could supply electricity to a large township would be bought at highly subsidised prices when they would be up for sale after first use by the American military forces in the Gulf. If Dubai decided that rooftop loudspeakers used for religious prayers were out of place in a civilised society, they got rid of that practice, just as Malaysia and most other emerging nations did. If corruption filtered into the society, measures were instantly taken to get rid than allowed as a compulsory regimen of a rising new economy. At the end of the day, it is a Government's first responsibility to work for the good of its people as a consistent practice. And it is that commitment that has given way for success of its people. It is about a will and an incline. No rocket science really.