The Winner of the Country X Competition
Michael Arther, Ethan Bick, Bryce Doherty – Class Period 1
Even though there were some great presentations, this one stands out. The political system they propose is
a standard representative democracy. However, their political blueprint provides specifics. For instance,
ethnic subdivisions (states) are created and allowed to make their own laws based on their culture and
religion. They use economic interdependence (trade) between subdivisions as a check against further war
and conflict. This group is also one of the very few to cite a specific economic system – capitalism. In
order to deal with Y – they assume a multipolar world where Y is not the only dominant military and
economic force. They use the threat of an alliance with an ideological enemy of Y as an incentive for them
to come to terms with Country X and limit their egregious resource abuses. There are huge problems with
this plan but this group held up well under class scrutiny and even survived my barrage of questions. Though
everyone in the group was able to defend their points, Ethan’s cogent responses to some very difficult
questions was impressive and demonstrated highly evolved thinking for a first year high school student.
Congratulations to Michael, Ethan and Bryce!!!
The Plight of Country X:
The prevalence of violence, both religious and ethnic, the soul crushing oppression of the former
government (in partnership with Country Y), the lack of education and the class divide between the rural
and urban areas makes the chances of a solution extremely remote, if not impossible. At present, Country
X has no form of government, thus no laws, and no consequences for the actions of its citizens. Human
nature dictates that the strong will prey upon the weak and even more violence will ensue. Even with all
of this happening, you were still asked to come up with a tenable solution to an impossible problem. The
solutions you were able to provide ranged from excellent to ridiculous. However, everyone was able to
mount an adequate defense of their position.
My Analysis:
I preface this analysis by emphatically stating that my opinion doesn’t matter. In fact, the truth doesn’t
matter – what matters are your ideas and the defense of your position. I chose the group who mounted
the best defense of their ideas (empirical and analytical support). As you will see below, the winning
group’s ideas are diametrically opposed to mine.
While I don’t have a comprehensive solution, I can say that it’s abundantly clear that a democratic form of
government is not the way to go. This country needs sweeping economic and social reform and politicians
in a democratic country will always be subject to the will of the people (slaves to the ballot box) or corporate
(money) influences. This clouds their judgment and will force them to act out of short term political
expediency rather than for the long term benefit of Country X. Moreover, you have a country with an 80%
illiteracy rate – so allowing the future course of your country to be determined by uneducated citizens who
don’t even know what democracy is – is simply outrageous. The weight of empirical evidence demonstrates
to us that unstable nation states with no educational system, a negligible middle class and a history of
political repression do not do well with democracy in the short term. All you have to do is look to
Afghanistan and Iraq to prove this point. If that’s not enough, you factor in the extreme religious and ethnic
diversity with decades of violent conflict - and a functional democratic government seems untenable. A
dictator with absolute power and strong military support would be able to make the reforms necessary, even
if they are unpopular. The military would have to be prioritized because a strong military is a prerequisite
to everything else working. Not only will the dictator not have to worry about popularity, he or she can
violate the basic natural rights of the citizens without consequences. Hardline action that violates the rights
of many rebellious religious and ethnic groups in X may be necessary to manufacture social stability in the
short term. For instance, when Alexander demolished Thebes as punishment for the Greeks asserting their
independence – the rest of the Greek city states fell in line. However, the risk of a dictator becoming corrupt
and acting against the best interests of the people of X is high – but in the end, the alternatives have an even
higher risk of failure.
In my mind, I see a draconian yet enlightened dictator who brutally quashes rebellions in order to gradually
work towards a democratic form of government. Rights will be sacrificed in the short term in order to gain
them back in the long term. This will be a struggle and many, many people will die at the hands of a dictator
who appears to have no soul. A dictatorship is the starting point – a democracy is the end point and the
means to get there is rife with problems. Country X, though evil and exploitative, will be a necessary partner
in our march towards freedom. We need their help and if we have to submit to what amounts to a modified
form of enslavement then we must do so. Machiavelli, a 16th century Italian philosopher, suggests that we
keep our friends close and our enemies closer – we will follow this advice. We need Country Y and they
need us. We can access their military support, financial help and trade in order to establish stability and
then slowly ease off the brutality and initiate incremental democratic reforms. The time table may be 60 to
80 years. Hopefully, we have a series of enlightened philosopher kings/queens who will do what is
necessary to move us forward. The economic system needs to function in the same way as our political
system. First, we engage in a modified version of state run socialism and then as China has modeled, we
eventually move towards a capitalist free market economy. A stable economic system is paramount and
Country X is not evolved enough to embrace a capitalist free market economy right away.
I am just a high school Social Studies teacher, not a politician or a Third World dictator - so I invite you to
formally critique my solution. If your parents, brothers, sisters, cousins or your neighbors down the road
would like to dissect these ideas - I welcome it. My classroom is an open forum so you are always welcome
to confront my ideas in the same way I confront yours.