In a candid interview, Bob Marley once challenged the status quo by asserting that every government is, to some extent, illegal. To the uninitiated, this claim might appear outrageous, yet Marley was delving into a deeper critique of institutionalized governments that often misrepresent the will of those they purport to serve. This breach of the social contract, according to Marley, renders their actions both illegal and illegitimate.
Implicit in Marley’s perspective is the idea that the legitimacy of a government is best judged by the quality of life it affords its citizens. While governments may not explicitly acknowledge their illegitimacy, their effectiveness becomes apparent through the tangible outcomes experienced by the populace.
However, Marley goes beyond holding governments accountable; he places a significant share of responsibility on the shoulders of the governed. He contends that the lack of self-governance necessitates institutional governance, shifting the blame for governmental shortcomings back to the populace.
The crux of Marley’s argument lies in the belief that humans were inherently designed for self-governance, bestowed with the ability to determine their destinies. However, in neglecting this natural duty, individuals have allowed mismanagement to infiltrate not only personal paths but also social and sexual behaviors. This misgovernance, Marley asserts, leads to suffering, corruption, and societal degeneracy.
As society descends into this downward spiral, institutional governments emerge as a seemingly necessary solution. Institutions, born out of the rejection of self-governance, step in to manage the populace. Individuals willingly surrender power and, at times, even their rights to these institutions, expecting protection from the consequences of their own misgovernance.
This shift in power dynamics, from self-governance to institutional governance, poses its own set of challenges. Concentrated power in institutions may lead to a prioritization of their interests over those of the populace. Humanity, to save itself from its own shortcomings, finds itself caught in the paradox of trading one form of misgovernance for another.
To navigate this complex terrain, the solution will be a path that balances institutional and self-governance. Rather than focusing solely on individual self-governance, the emphasis should be on building community self-governance. Communities, under this model, autonomously determine their destinies, choosing representatives at the institutional level independently. This stands in stark contrast to the current scenario where institutions often impose preferred candidates on communities.
In this proposed paradigm, it becomes the duty of the community to instill and restore the natural duty of individual self-governance among its members.
By fostering a sense of community self-governance, the balance between institutional oversight and individual agency can be restored, mitigating the risks associated with concentrated power and ensuring that the governed actively participate in shaping their collective destiny.
As we grapple with the complexities of governance, Marley’s vision offers a thought-provoking perspective, challenging us to reconsider the delicate dance between self-governance and institutional oversight in the pursuit of a more balanced and equitable societal structure.
E-mail: karlsimbumusic@gmail.com
Uncommon Sense is published every Friday in the New Era newspaper with contributions from Karlos Naimwhaka.