Regardless of where you started and now what you have become in life (or what life has turned you into), there is no doubt that, if you have had the fortune or misfortune of going through what can even minimally be described as a decent education you must have had a lesson about forms of government.
I deliberately use the expression “there is no doubt” because memory is a reckless dictator that has no respect for facts and decides what was and what was not. So that you remember or not is not the issue here, what is at play here is the quality of education you received or went through and the probability of you haven been taught about the different forms and style of government and states.
At the most basic level, you must have learnt about the following forms of government:
Democracy (if soberly taught) would have been explained as a government wherein sovereignty resides with the people and where the people have the right to participate in the process of decision-making by choosing those that rule through voting, or (if colourfully presented) as government of the people by the people for the people.
Monarchy: A form of government wherein an individual, by birth right and in the name of a family, holds the highest position of authority and dispenses favours, appointments and privileges at will and based on reasons that cannot be questioned. In an absolute monarchy, deeds and words of the monarch are unquestionable. Those who have studied the traditional Yoruba kingdom will readily understand why the king is called Kábíyèsí (the unquestionable one).
Oligarchy: A form of government wherein power is concentrated in the hands of and managed by a small, usually privileged group, of people, linked by wealth, birth, cult or skills.
Military Junta: A government often established through a coup d’état and led by a committee of military leaders, and assisted by civilians.
Totalitarianism: A form of government wherein the government in the name of state has total control over the moral, economic, political and other private choices of life. Liberties of individuals and freedoms of minority are largely restricted in this form of government.
Readers of the pages will know that is not our habit to spend time and words on known and obvious concepts. I have taken time to reintroduce these concepts of governments and states for two major reasons. One is to let readers test the form of government they live under in theory and practice and juxtapose such government with what it is in reality and what it ought to be or professes it to be. Secondly is to prepare us for a form a government that most readers were not introduced to in general education, no matter how good.
A form of government most have not been taught about is a form of government we can call “Kritocracy” and it can be translated as a government of judges or rulership by judges. “kritḗs”, judges in Greek and of course “ocracy” we will all know. Some scholars trace the origin of Kritocracy to the ancient judges of the bible established by Moses before the advent of a monarchy amongst the Jews. Others have gone further to trace Kritocracy to 13th century medieval Ireland.
With the advent of democracy and the universal embrace of the concept of separation of powers, it is has become difficult to see a system that will openly declare itself a Kritocracy and yet elements of Kritocracy are not difficult to identify for an observer that is not a prisoner of partisan needs and conditions.
A system where the final choice of who rules is decided not be voters as it happens in democracy, nor by the kings as it happens in a monarchy, nor by military leaders as it happens in military junta but by judges is a Kritocracy. In such scenario judges are the real kingmakers, not the people, not parliament not the military, not God but judges.
It might not sound logical but there are cases in some part of this world where a court judgement substantially pronounced that because a candidate was not fit to run for an election the victory, the votes he or she has secured at the polls should go to another candidate that was rejected by voters.
Let us for a moment assume that the candidate that won is a scoundrel and should not be allowed into office, does that make those who voted for him or her villains? Unlike a competition based on personal skills or talent, a democratic contest is simply but crucially about people’s choice, the most an umpire can do is to make sure that people’s choice is respected. In a system that insists that that sovereignty belongs to the people, like in a democratic system form of government, no one will be allowed to rule if he or she is not the most voted for. If, however the system is Kritocracy then the judges can very well ignore voters’ wishes and decide what is good for all of us…
For those who care more about good government, yes, a government of judges might actually be a good government if in their wisdom they choose men and women capable and just to rule the rest of us. The problem is what if they don’t? What if like voters, judges end up getting it wrong? What can the people do wherein sovereignty is taken out of the hands of the people and judges decided for them then make choices that the people do not agree with?
Yes, in all these considerations we have not even questioned the integrity or competence of judges. We have not bothered to ask what will happen if judges are also or become partisan like ordinary voters.
Join me if you can on twitter @anthonykila to continue these conversations.
•Kila is Institute Director at CIAPS. www.ciaps.org.
