Quite often mankind hurries to find fault with almost anything. Seldom do we endeavor to provide constructive, viable and meaningful suggestions to turn those faults into good values. The world is simply full of problems, problems that range from personal to collective. What it is devoid of is the abundance of our creative potentials to finding solutions to its myriad problems. At times, and at worst, we will ignore them as if they do not exist. When we don't, we will stop at by mentioning them or merely condemn those who ignorantly or innocently fall in our classification of doing wrong. This piece is a humble and limited break with such a culture. Taking one specific problem: How the led/ruled can relate with the leader/ruler?,towards the mutual benefit of both, I attempt to construct an ideal political society in which everyone is protected by everyone and most importantly, where all unselfishly contribute towards the development of all - the commonweal. The article works towards an alternative political configuration and a wider political responsibility. This is as a result of the unsuitability of the present systems of political arrangement in most societies, predominantly Africa, based on polarization on so-called party lines, which I am convince of. A significant dose of history will help set the pace of analysis. At a macro level or on the international stage, politics over the centuries have been through three basic forms. First, a WORLD IMPERIAL SYSTEM, where one government is dominant over most of the world with which it has contact with. Second, a FEUDAL SYSTEM, in which an individual had obligations to a local Lord and/or might even owe duties to some distant Noble. Third, is an ANARCHIC SYSTEM OF STATES, the most recent one, which composed of states that are relatively cohesive but with no higher government above them. Comparing this to the micro level or to what seem to have happened on the domestic stage, politics has at least gone through the first and second stages of political interaction, as had on the international stage. No domestic society has had sustained an anarchic system for long as yet with no higher government, although, as a result of civil wars in certain societies, total or pertial break down of institutions of government had occurred. What evidently had occurred in almost all societies at one time or the other, is that, a collection of people had complete dominance over other people brough about by various means. The other reality has been loyality of some people to other people or institutions. It is this latter relationship that is of significance to the modern society. It is about the relationship between the people and the state. About how responsible should the state be to the people, vice versa. About what duties should the state have to the people and what rights should the people have in dealing with the state, vice versa. Sanctioning the degree and the level at which each of these responsibilities and obligations can be administered is debatable. What is of relevance however for the nonce is scrutiny of how public instruments can be enforced. Public instruments could only be counter-productive if they are issued to enforce a certain way of behavior, unless supplemented by benefit-sharing principles. For example, why should I be obliged to observe others' rights if mine are not observed by them? Why should one care for others viewpoint, if one's own is ignored? This is about reciprocity and is indeed a formidable dilemma. In essence however, how can everyone be a meaningful and active player towards shooting up a society to higher heights of advancement? In my ideal society, I provide the answer by showing how the state, categorized as the ruling government, in relation with the people, as the opposition, can function mutually beneficially. Simlistically, a ruling government, amongst other things, is seen to be responsible for the general welfare of the people, and the opposition, apart from serving as an alternative government, functions as a check on the ruling government to keep on track of its responsibilities. My ideal society certainly incorprates all these salient features. What may distinguish it from other societies is the emphasis on how the opposition should function, as an added responsibility. The opposition in my ideal society therefore will not merely be a tool as an alternative government or a watchdog, but also for the following: 1) Be seen to be involved in investing and running schools 2) Be seen to be involved in investing and managing hospitals - general health services 3) Be seen in owning business enterprises that can generate employment opportunities It will be about a shift in prioritization and this ideal society, as it may be true of many other societies, finds itself young, inexperience and unsophisticated to entertain unstructured and frequent changes of order or government. What it would desire is to keep one, until such a time otherwise, with improvisation whilst all people work towards its development. That is about a long-term plan. Can such an arrangement work for the Gambia or any other society? Certainly yes. Assuming that the opposition keeps its traditional role and goes further, of course with the help those who bankroll it, to provide services such as owning companies, running hospitals and running schools, then it would have put to reality its good wishes for the people for which it wants to put itself in government in the first place. Imagine, if the energy, resources and the potentials invested in campaigning in preparation for a single day event, is redirected towards providing for what the people basically need, then in 10-20 years, we would have had produced many educated people, healthy and strong people, and self-sustaining people, enough to catapult every member of society to high social status. That situation where the government's role will be minimized to providing security mostly. Every one becomes independent. The simple fact … that mankind must first of all eat, drink, and have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, arts, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, etc., of the people have been evolved…. (Katz, 1989). Can the opposition focus on such issues? Sure they can. Can they do it? Why no. The modalities is left to speculation. So, what happens when people in a society each owns himself/herself and refuses to be a tool of manipulation? Could such a situation generate a version of an anarchic system at the international stage on the domestic scene? Far from it. Would it creat a state within a state? No. It could only help to garner peoples' energies and talents towards their ultimate development. A period when we shall not worry why and how the few elites in our midst manipulate our sentiments for their own ends, as every one would have been an elite. This is good for stability, peace and security and for politics in general, thus the term "Political Populism" (my own coinage). Think about it. Blessings Alieu ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------