conclusion
what i could collect as information and knowledge so far, is that humans are genetically tuned to be tribal animals.
what i think as well, is that there is genius in the big religions' dogma, allowing different tribes to live peacefully together in cities as societies.
but there is a difference between aristocratic rule uniting those tribes around one king or queen, based on an immortal order as the church interprets it and a democratic order in national states based on equality and merit and the rule of the majority.
it goes wrong where modern nations are ruled in a monopolar fashion by democratically elected presidents or prime ministers. i think such "one-eyed" leadership is rather suited for tribal thinking, for aristocratic thinking, for dictatorial or autocratic thinking, or exceptionally for nations based around one big majority tribe or alliance of tribes of the same religion.
such nations of one predominant culture can indulge in the delusion of one nation, one tradition, creating powerful nations where millions are united around that one culture, bringing the country forward for a while and allow the citizens to enjoy some prosperity.
but it is a lie because each big society, especially the connected modern ones, are diverse and nations basing their loyalty around one tradition turn out to become sooner or later as well again victim of their own success. the jealousy and doubt at their portrayed superior culture eats on the lie and divides the nation again.
.
because while things go well in a monopolar nation, a president is maybe contested by an ignorable fifteen percent but surely has the support of the majority. now that majority gets split under the prospect of needing to elect the next president, not necessarily, but can, especially after a poor performance of a president and his or her political party.
in tribes you can easily assess the merit of somebody and you know his or her ability to lead. in a nation that wants to be a big tribe, it's easy to mislead and manipulate the masses to portray yourself as the big kahuna that has the wisdom and grit to lead the nation. some want to refuse that truth, but i think there have been enough nefast populists turning out to be dictators since hitler.
with political choice at the ballots, decisions are taken by the majority of the people, which i think are always good choices, just due to the complexity of societies can't be understood at once but need time to evolve from the abstract vote into their physical reflections.
now the point is, because humans are genetically tuned to be tribal thinkers, leaders elected to become president are not always mature to a point where they have learned to disconnect from community or tribal thinking in order to always stay on a societal or national level and such be able to interpret the people's will correctly.
the lack of such maturity, which the people wanted or not in the elections, for good or for bad, is what leads those presidents to be so clumsy allowing their friends - or at least the wrong ones from people perspective - to enjoy favours which aren't legitimate, leading to a feeling of injustice in society.
and because nations are rarely composed by a majority of one tribe, but rather a multitude of tribes, society under monopolar rule gets easily divided in opposition to the corrupt president and such splits into two or more.
.
under the poor performance the president usually gets unelected, but some refuse to leave or outright rig the votes. the split becomes real and the refusal to accept the authority of the people - as the authority issue the president is or has become - makes any outcome delusional, that is either the president is shot, or the president shoots on those who want to remove him or her from power.
some succeed staying in power for decades. some have even institutionalized their rule and called themselves kings or queens ( to be honest i'm not aware of any... they find other terms ).
humans are driven by habits and so they get used to the injustice, the lack of political freedom, for as long as they have food and water and more or less a stable life to survive. it's not that they are cowards, it's just that they don't know better, because who would follow the shot president if not another delusional leader, because who else than a delusional person could impose him- or herself in the pursuing chaos.
so the oppressed citizens accept that are allowed to live for as long as don't mind being irregularly but systematically abused and helpless in front of the corrupt police and criminal gangs able to corrupt the judicial branch. they are modern slaves, sheep from the perspective of the president ( and unfortunately as well sometimes from the church ), not able to enjoy stable electricity or fast internet, drinkable water and biological food, because the president had to allow somebody more to corrupt the system so could stay in power and enrich himself and his friends keeping him in power. the citizens are just elements, that are here to serve their purpose in a system : losers and winners in a game called life. if it's too hard then you were too weak, as if we'd still live in the animals' kingdom void of humanism.
for the doleful people hence respectively the rebels against their will amongst you - or such presidents' that turn out to have a conscious beyond the survival of their own tribe in the short-run - i want to say a solution exists to the dilemma posed by the question whether you should get rid of your dictator and risk the chaos or stay silent with the odds against you in the long run. the solution, as i know it and you know in the meantime, is called a collegial executive more scientifically called a directorial executive also known as a council.
to be governed not by one but by seven equal presidents is what allows to exit the tribal vicious circle that can open itself up under monopolar presidential rule or under the chaos of its absence. it's a compromise that acknowledges that a nation needs a strong leader, but that acknowledges as well that probably it's better to abstract that concept of a strong leader to have it physically represented with seven equal human beings, members of a council as the head-of-state.
it's a concept i don't know where it comes from, but surely the french revolutionary thinkers have pondered about it for a long time or they wouldn't have opted for such directorial rule after the revolution.
.
for me it's a political concept i understand first better with my mathematical side of the brains, applying the logics of physics, chemistry and why not biology onto communities, societies and nations. this systemic approach is helpful because there is only one well functioning example available in the real world ( Switzerland and Bosnia Herzegovina the two samples being ) and so there aren't that many various positive stories you could tell your left side of the brains that could persuade you of the cause for multipolar rule. the presence of presidential leadership is just immensely outweighing. which is also a critic, that is if western scientists would consider the stories, all the stories, behind their statistics, they wouldn't pretend so vehemently neither, that the system works ; the system of strong presidencies and premierships.
.
because the way of thinking, which allows a council to survive, is of complex and doubt-full societal or national concepts and principles, it is against human tribal intuition as you can find it working just fine as it seems in nations of one ethnicity. it first has to be learned, the political culture has to adapt, especially the parliamentary power trading. the french, used to royal rule, haven't been able to learn fast enough before a wanna-be big kahuna came and abolished the council again. many other nations have followed.
the swiss on the other hand, never having had a president of the confederation of cantons that were ( my father told me the ancient helvètes would elect the oldest amongst them as leader to either profit of his acquired wisdom and if not then his close death ), could see in the united leadership an advantage bringing the nation through standardisation forward, all while not seeing a threat - or less fearful, a disharmony in the tribal mind - in the presence of a strong president, who might or might not represent the interests of one own's tribe.
many things have changed since the introduction of collegial rule in switzerland in the beginning of the 19th century. we switched from five to seven members in 1848 after a small civil war, we introduced proportional elections and popular votes, but we always sticked with the principle of shared rule at the top of the central administration, knowing, feeling, having the instinct, that it would be better such. even during the world wars or during the economic crisis this form of leading a nation endured.
today, switzerland is seen as an example of stability, envied by many dictators eager to copy our liberal economic politics... and unable in their delusion to risk to give democratic popular voting rights to the people, who such could block their strive or introduce initiatives to introduce social welfare rights or to get outright rid of presidential rule and install a helvetic-like council as well.
.
i think the goal should always stay to aspire to move on beyond tribal thinking when it comes to national and international affairs and rather engage in a universal way of societal decision making - based on equality and merit rather than simple loyalty and strength - able to connect the communities or tribes in peace rather than mistrust.
