Governments of Men

Recently we have been through the primary election season, and now we have the general election to look forward to. In the past few weeks, what mudslinging we have seen in the races for governor and lietenant governor! When you consider how Mark Taylor and Cathy Cox treated each other (in the Democratic primary for governor) and Ralph Reed and Casey Cagle beat each other up (in the Republican primary for lietenant governor), it makes you shudder to think that in each case the candidates fighting each other were essentially on the same side! Thoughts about the governments of men have been running through my mind...

The Soviet Union, in my mind, truly was an “evil empire,” as it was referred to by President Ronald Reagan. While we could cite it ruthlessness, its false promises, its atheism, and on and on, there is one very simple way to know what a country or an empire is like: just look to its borders. Does a country have to guard its borders to keep its citizens in—or does it struggle to keep illegal immigrants out?

We in the United States are proud of our experiment with a democratically elected republic (most people refer to it as a democracy but I think they know that it is technically a republic). We treasure the freedoms we have—freedom of worship, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, etc.—and we think that everyone should have these freedoms. We think everyone should have some form of democratic-based government.

But is every nation ready for such a government? Does everyone have the capacity to make such a system work?

When I look at the world today, it gives me pause to wonder. Please understand, I don’t know the answers at this point. What I am saying is, as I look at all the nations around the world and what has happened in our world in the past couple of decades, it makes me wonder. I am just thinking out loud.

Must there be an evolution—if I can use that word—of thought, an evolution of worldview, an evolution of understanding before democratic processes can take root successfully in a nation? I know that may sound condescending to other nations to say it that way. And I certainly don't want mean it that way—after all, to keep me humble about our own government, I only need to recall that Cynthia McKinney is "my" congresswoman as I write! Remember, I am thinking as I am writing. Perhaps a better way to say it is that certain worldviews are compatible with some types of government and some are compatible with others.

In fact, we could conceivably move to another form of government that is even better for us at some time in the future. After all, we constantly change leadership practices in business and in other organizations all the time; it can certainly happen in a country. We should all be reminded from time to time of the words of Winston Churchill in a speech to the House of Commons in Britain on November 11, 1947: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

How right he is, and how needful for us to hear it! That leads us back to the question: Are all nations ready for some form of democracy? The question certainly must be asked about Iraq, for instance. Our president, whom I admire, is adamant about instituting some form of democracy. I hope it is successful. In fact, I pray that it is successful. But the question returns: are the people of Iraq, with their worldview/religion, really able to have it work without constant civil conflict or civil war?

Let’s go even further back. At the beginning, I stated that I truly believe the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Taking the words quoted above by Winston Churchill should help us ask the question, “Are we able to replace the bad with something better—or something worse?”

Hindsight makes me ask that question. As evil as I believe the Soviet Union was, stop to consider what replaced it—not so much in Russia, which I think is an improvement, but in its wider "sphere of influence” ("Sphere of influence" is a rather kind way of putting it, don’t you think?) For instance, was Yugoslavia better off as a united country, albeit under communism, than what transpired after the breakup (remember names like Milosovic and peoples like Serbs and Croats and all the violence there). And what about all the _____stans (fill in the blank) and some other now sovereign nations that were once part of the Soviet empire that are in conflict. Was it better that they were controlled as opposed to all the violence we see today? Again, no question that the Soviet Union was evil. Just the question: is what replaced it even more evil?

See, no answers. Just questions about whether we can export democratic ideals until it is demonstrable that enough people understand it—and long for it!

Back when I was in college, I attended an International Student Conference sponsored by the Baptist Student Union in Georgia. This was sometime in the late 1970’s—likely 1977 but I could be off a year either way, I guess. My eyes were opened to issues I knew nothing about until that weekend. Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, was guest lecturer. When he opened it up for questions, it was as if a floodgate opened! All kinds of students were yelling and screaming questions and opinions to him. These students, I soon discovered, were from Iran, and they were decrying the United States’ support of the Shah of Iran—that was probably the first time I had ever heard of him. I didn’t know the underlying current of emotion and thought until 1979 when the Iranians seized the U.S. Embassy, taking 52 hostages. These students were demanding the overthrow of the Shah. I don’t remember a lot—just the emotional force of their questions, as I have said—but I do remember clearly what Dean Rusk calmly said to them in response to their call for the removal of the Shah. Perhaps he knew the Shah wasn’t the greatest government possibility for Iran. I infer that only from his answer, which makes so much sense to me today in view of all that is going on in the world. He simply asked them a question in return: “Who are you going to replace him with?”

After seeing what the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors have done in Iran, that questions looks better and better. It is apparent that Dr. Rusk knew that however bad the Shah might have been, he was better than any lurking alternative. We need to ask that question, too, when we see terrible governments. Will the next wave be better—or worse? (Can anyone say “Castro”?)

Let’s be humble about government systems in the world. What works here may not work elsewhere—at least not yet. Is a democratic republic always best? Israel did pretty well under at least one king—King David. Unfortunately, you know what we have normally observed about absolute power! That corruption appeared in the lives of most other Israelite kings in the Bible (both kingdoms)—and most kings in history, for that matter.

There will be one great exception: one day the Lord Jesus will reign—and His kingdom will be a righteous kingdom, and His kingdom will never end. How I look forward to His reign! Until then, let’s think hard, work hard, and pray hard about how we govern ourselves—and how we intervene in the nations of the world.