Do you think that stable governments are based on the relationships of the rulers and the ruled? Why?

Question

I'm curious to see the different opinions of this question

Answer 1

Absolutely. When the rulers are elected officials which due to the democratic process are elected based upon what the people feel fits their needs and wants for the country.

Answer 2

Let me say firstly that I am no politician but as a lay person, I do believe that stability in government can be compared to stability in a relationship or a good family unit.

Why? Because since the government - by definition - is the people themselves who elected the government, then it should follow that the needs and interests of the 'ruled' should always be considered, based on what is best for the 'whole' unit.

In a relationship, say - husband and wife - it is not what he wants or she wants but what is best for the constancy of the relationship. Hard choices have to be made for the good of the unit, the marriage, not his or her individual desires.

In a family, there are going to be many different opinions and individual wants. There is going to be need for each one to make concessions for the happiness in the home. Family members will disagree and sometimes fight but there should be a place where they come together and sort out issues for the benefit of the home.

In the same way that some families fall apart for one reason or another - usually because one parent or the other decides he or she has had it and wants out, thereby breaking up the home and the children get lost in some system, so too, do governments - where the 'rulers' go crazy and use arbitrary and dictatorial methods to run their nations, the people are disenfranchised and express their frustration in civil unrest.

Governments must keep their relationships with their people on a 'healthy' basis; deal honestly with the people; honor promises; know the needs of the people; when there is a situation requiring govermental intervention, intervene promptly and sincerely.

These are just a few ways which I believe should be employed in governing a nation.

Answer 3

Certain ally a combination of both. However a lot would depend upon how much influence the 'ruler' exerts over the 'ruled'. For instance, if you take Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia as an example, would you agree that these countries were stable because the citizens felt content and secure in their leaders or would you feel they were terrorized into going along with the flow because it meant imprisonment or worse?
Hitler and the Bolsheviks came to power at a time when the governments in place were on the verge of collapse. The Wiemar Republic was on a downhill slide as well as the Romanov Dynasty. Once they fell, the new government didn't give a damn what the people thought. They had influenced them enough to get into a position of power and then put them under the boot. So in that case, stability was set into place by shooting anyone who disagreed.
I think that it would be fair to say that a system of government that has stood the test of time did so/does so because of a good relationship between citizenry and government. Despite having control over military and law enforcement, the government can't hold influence over the minds of people forever. Sooner or later if the populace gets fed up then the government fails. After all....the military and police are made up of people.

Answer 4

The concept is typically called "The Will of the People." I can't recall which philosopher first coined the term, but a lot of people use the concept to advocate democracy.

What the term really means is that a government will stand as long as the people are willing to accept it. For example, the Soviet Union survived for 75 years because the people were unwilling to challenge the totalitarian government. An unfriendly or "evil" government can be stable if the citizens are unwilling to risk the displeasure of the rulers and call for change.

What makes democracy a stable form of government is the willingness of all parties involved to have a "peaceful revolution" at the ballot box every few years.

Stability is determined not just by what the relationship with the ruler gives to the ruled, it is also determined by what the ruled have to lose by demanding change.