(RULE)___POWER STRUGGLE AND ITS PREVENTION

“An individual must respect the command and control at every level to prevent power struggle and ensure smooth transfer in an ideal society.”

With the emergence of more and more complex human societal interaction, the need for a comprehensive strategy to coordinate the functioning becomes more prominent. Since the early ages, the strategies devised to overcome this very basic need have undergone a complex process of scrutiny.

An effective model and its components

Benefit of the Society (as a whole)

An effective model is the one that benefits the society (as a whole) while being acceptable to an overwhelming majority. Any model lacking either of these two essential components will ultimately suffer and create a power struggle in the society. An outpouring of different strategies results in chaos and different groups struggling to dominate, with virtually no group having an effective roadmap ahead. Let’s discuss these two essential components and understand why this power struggle is unhealthy. As said earlier, an effective model benefits the society as a whole, i.e. the societal demand is collectively fulfilled. In a non-ideal society (as the one we witness today), every group (occupational, associational, societal-stratification-wise etc.) is eager to get as much benefit as they can extract from the system in place, and this determines their preferred system or strategy of choice. This has led to the emergence of corporate bodies having substantial influence in power projection, and the essential component of benefit to the society as a whole is hugely compromised, and thus there can be no lasting peace in the political arena. There is always a set amount of benefit that must be administered to the groups in accordance with the stress on the society, i.e. not every group gets the same amount, but the needs and environmental conditions determine the set amount rather than personal inclination. To understand this, let’s consider a situation in which the crime rate is increasing due to rising unemployment among young people; the amount of benefit should be increased with the help of associated sectors, e.g. more accommodation in the food, manufacturing, energy, labour (construction) and health care sectors. Ultimately, the relief is transferred to the required group while the stress is divided among different groups, and the whole process is far from personal inclination (i.e. need is the basic cause in this situation).

Any system of regulation is a coordinating authority with as much interference as is required, while each area of consideration is virtually independent. Such an effective command system is easily achievable in an ideal society (no considerable resistance or clash of priorities), while in a non-ideal society, a high level of checks and balances is required at every level to ensure that things are moving forward. This in turn exaggerates the eruption of methods to evade the set of rules and the prioritization of personal benefit.

Stress determines the benefit

A perfect model has a rotation of stress-bearing groups (the ones capable of nullifying the excess stress, i.e. satisfying the need of the hour). Let us consider that there is a group in need (of any kind of support); different capable groups are coordinated to divert the resources or benefits they were receiving to provide a helping hand in order to nullify the stress (note that the stress is divided among the stress-bearing groups). (The groups and their rotation are decided by the capable governing individuals at the level concerned, in line with the needs and the environmental conditions.)

Rotation of stress-bearing groups

This must not be a permanent relationship; with time, the groups must be rotated to include other ones if the stress persists for longer. If at times the stress is overwhelming (like in situations that are non-ideal or there is some disaster), then there is a rotation of responsibility while the stress mostly remains constant, e.g. if there is a famine in some area, then there must be relocation of the population or adequate provision of food from other areas. Benefits administered to stress-bearing groups are diverted in a rotational manner (i.e. some proportion is involved initially, then the responsibility passes to other groups, and so on in a cyclic process). To conclude this point, a lump-sum benefit of the society is a dynamic provision of benefits regulated by needs and environmental conditions rather than personal prioritization or a demand for a constant flow of benefits. (In practice, the stress can be divided among the capable groups in proportion to their capacity, and the turns of rotation can be scheduled in advance so that no group carries it for too long, while a yearly check shows whether any group is being overloaded.)

Majority Backing

The other essential component of an effective model is the acceptance by an overwhelming majority. Though it is a determining factor in efficiency, it is not always a priority (i.e. where the majority and competence part ways, competence comes first, as discussed under ICS). If a system is an ideal one, then there is always a consensus on any model that is beneficial (having the above-mentioned characteristics). (Such acceptance is seen in the willing participation of the people in the model, rather than in a count of votes.) In a non-ideal situation, strategies struggle to dominate due to division in the society (an effective model never dominates due to a clash of interests). In our society, this element is abused with a modified acceptance level and public perception moulding, mainly by propaganda machines. The use of modern techniques has made it easy for resourceful people to change public attitudes, and hence the process of hypnotism prevails effectively. Do you think that they will ever wish to let people know the truth and hold them accountable? They are hell-bent on maintaining a system that serves their personal benefits (interests). Wait, wait! If this is the case (which it actually is), then what about democracy and the free world stuff? Just wake up and try to feel the real world, the whole, the OPPRESSIVE WORLD (aided by dominance and cruelty)! This was a befitting response to the claimants of civilizational revolution.

Command-and-Control system

The reverse relationship

By the way, let’s talk about the command-and-control system (for which we had this preceding discussion of societal-organization-related strategy). For this, we have to consider an ideal society (i.e. in which there is a comprehensive distribution of capables in the societal stratification, from lower to upper level, with increasing capability level tuned with interest level, with the work-position similarity theory in place, an appropriate respect standard in place, and wealth being virtually unnecessary); in such a society, the command and control have a reciprocal relationship, i.e. command descends from upper to lower levels, while control ascends from lower to upper levels. This means that the instructions to follow are provided at every level from more capables to the relatively less capables (as the societal stratification is of a pyramid type, the upper organizational class is managing the lower working class in a step-by-step manner). The control is mainly by the selection of capables at every level on the basis of efficiency and respect level (both are under consideration). (i.e. a leader who loses efficiency or respect is replaced through the same selection by the level below him; this is how control ascends.)

Real Democracy

A system (with the previously defined characteristics) is the basis, while devising different strategies is the responsibility of the leadership. So, the selection of commanding authority is a matter of competence and sincerity rather than changing the basis for personal interests (the process that is dominant in a non-ideal society and which is the driving cause of power struggle in the society). This means that democracy is not the direct selection of the leadership at higher levels by the people at the lower stratification levels of the society, nor the selection of representatives from land-area-based constituencies. To gain a deep knowledge of real democracy, let us consider a model called “Indirect Competence-based Selection” (ICS).

Indirect Competence-based Selection

It is a strategy for the selection of commanding authority based on competency. What does this mean? To provide a context, let’s take an example: some local farmers gathered at a place to discuss some regulatory issues regarding land limitation and water channel distribution. The clash of interests was with farmers of a nearby locality. They agreed to nominate a person who could negotiate on their behalf. What do you think: would it be better to select someone from another occupation (craftsman, labourer, doctor etc.) who has neither deep knowledge of the issue nor any experience in this regard, or someone of the same occupation with a high level of competence and experience in the field? No doubt, the second case is more efficient or stronger, even if the majority of farmers are selecting otherwise (this would be due to personal or priority reasons rather than fact-based ones). This competence is the basis of ICS (note that competence is given priority rather than personal selection) (in an ideal society, the majority opinion is always fact-based, i.e. far from personal interest, while in the non-ideal case, there can be significant division, but still the priority must be given to competence and sincerity). In a non-ideal society, this model faces challenges mainly due to power struggle (but is still better than the current established concept of democracy, because there are tremendous loopholes in the system we witness today, and thus a great compromise in the efficiency is the result), while its true spirit is evident in an ideal society (being a model, we will assume this situation, i.e. the ideal one). (The steps of this selection, from the sub-sectors of a county up to the head of the state, are shown in the life story of Ahmad below.) (In practice, competence is a person’s wisdom that proves itself over a long period, i.e. it is judged by the output of his decisions and by his knowledge of the field, which the peers of the same field are best placed to assess.)