What Do You Want from Government?

WHEN we read the declarations of statesmen and rulers we find that they have a knowledge of many things that mankind really needs to be happy. Politicians know what to promise to get the people’s vote. These facts show that world leaders have generally not been ignorant or unaware of the responsibility in their hands as leaders of the people. But most persons would agree that these needs have not often been supplied. Is this too much to expect from government?

Really, the wants of men and women for them to be happy do not require volumes to be stated. They amount to a few simple, basic essentials. People do not, for example, expect the government to give them all of life’s necessities. Neither do they want a government that regulates every act of their lives. They want freedom to work at an occupation they can enjoy, with assurance that they will always have work to support their families. They desire to have some leisure time to enjoy the fruits of their labor, to live with their families in peace, without fear of attack, robbery or molestation. They would appreciate having a clean, unpolluted environment and clean, uncluttered places for recreation, where the beauties of natural creation and wildlife could be enjoyed.

Men and women, to be really happy, must also be free. They must have freedom of thought, freedom of worship, the liberty to speak what they believe, to assemble together and to act as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the freedoms and rights of others.

Would you not be happy to live where you had those freedoms and securities? Only a good government, with the cooperation of its people, can assure them. If you could have free communication, travel and association with people of other nationalities or races, with real friendliness, if you were not suspicious or afraid they were plotting war against you, how comfortable that would be!

Therein lies a problem. Even if national governments were to bring security and peace within their borders, this would not assure peace between nations. It would take a world government to do this.

There is another factor essential to happiness, and that is the health of the people. Until recent times, governments have not done much toward tackling this problem. Of course, happiness is not complete unless a person has good health, and unless those he loves also have health. And no one who is enjoying sparkling health, peace and freedom wants to leave the scene in death. So for real, unclouded happiness, the fear of death would have to be removed. But what government can do this? What government can provide sure and life-sustaining material provisions and at the same time fill the mental and spiritual needs of its subjects? Or, is there such a possibility?

Can any government bring all, or even most of these desirable and essential things to its people? Can any government instill such love and cooperation among its people that the desirable conditions can be brought about? Or do we have reason to believe that progress toward this goal is being made? What does the record of human rulership to date show?

The Record of Human Rulership

HAS there been any form of government conceivable to the mind of man that he has not tried? Our modern-day governments are to a great extent the product of “political science.” This is a serious study of the trial-and-error experiences of man’s efforts at ruling himself, with a view to incorporating the most successful methods into government.

Accordingly, we should have governments​—at least some governments—​that fill the people’s needs, that provide what people want from government. Do we have any? What does the modern-day record of human rulership reveal?

AN APPEAL FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT

The New York Times of Sunday, May 21, 1972, carried a full-page declaration by a group of well-known citizens of thirty-two countries signing themselves as the “First Planetary Citizens.” Entitled “A HUMAN MANIFESTO,” this declaration was an indictment of the efforts of man’s rulership up to the present time to bring the things most desired. It made the following strong assertions:

“Human life on our planet is in jeopardy.

“It is in jeopardy from war that could pulverize the human habitat.

“It is in jeopardy from preparations for war that destroy or diminish the prospects of decent existence.

“It is in jeopardy because of the denial of human rights.

“It is in jeopardy because the air is being fouled and the waters and soil are being poisoned.

“It is in jeopardy because of the uncontrolled increase in population.”

What, then, was the conclusion of the declaration? It was expressed in an appeal to enlist further human effort in support of the United Nations.

But does the record of human rulership justify the placing of trust in the United Nations?

WAR

What does the record show as to “jeopardy from war”? Has human rulership made progress toward ensuring peace?

As reported in the Western Producer, the Norwegian Academy of Sciences made a calculation of the frequency and severity of wars as far back as history would permit. They discovered that, “since 650 B.C. there have been 1656 arms races, only 16 of which did not end in war. The remainder ended in the economic collapse of the countries concerned.”

After the first twenty-five years of the United Nations’ history, a review of its record was made. The Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin of October 18, 1970, quoted U Thant, then United Nations secretary-general, as saying:

“I am very much afraid that although we have been able to reach the moon, we often show incredibly shortsighted selfishness, complacency and indifference when it comes to meeting the great challenges we face here on earth.”

And Lester P. Pearson, then prime minister of Canada, summed up the results of the United Nations’ peace efforts in these words: “Peace rests uneasily on hydrogen bombs. It is sad that the United Nations has found no better resting place for it.”

Realistically, then, does human rulership have anything to offer to justify hope that it will ever bring peace?

POLLUTION

Another threat as serious as war is the pollution situation. As one mere sample of the mountainous problems in every phase of the fight against pollution, consider the garbage predicament. Reader’s Digest, in a condensation from National Civic Review of March 1972, cites the answer of more than a score of the United States’ leading authorities on solid-waste management, to the question “Just how serious is the trash problem?” They revealed:

“The volume of solid wastes we pile up every year is stupendous​—80 billion cans, 38 billion bottles, 40 million tons of paper and cartons, 180 million old tires, 21 million major household appliances, seven million junked automobiles. Disposal currently costs us $4.5 billion a year​—a figure that could double in the next generation.”

Probably the most dangerous of all are the wastes dumped into our waters. “By 1980,” warns the National Academy of Sciences, “we will be producing enough waterborne wastes to consume all the oxygen in all 22 river basins of the United States.”

Is the problem merely that of one nation? Editorial Research Reports of December 1, 1971, warns:

“The big question for the U.N. conference [held in Stockholm in June 1972], and for all subsequent attempts to stop worldwide pollution, is whether the concern about the environment has come too late to do much good. Has man, in fact, gone too far to turn back? Can the nations make the hard political decisions that are necessary to establish worldwide cooperation in the face of the present crisis? Anything less than a full-scale international effort seems futile. The world’s ecosystem is one; it is such that no nation alone can clean up its environment. The atmosphere carries industrial pollutants and pesticides all over the earth. Virtually every international waterway is polluted.”

Do you find this record encouraging or inspiring confidence in human rule?

CRIME

Crime is another destructive factor that no government has been able to stop. In fact, this cancerous infection is spreading at an alarming rate world wide. In some nations crime is almost like a rival underground government. Crime has been called “a worldwide epidemic,” an “international tragedy.”

In the world’s most affluent country, the United States, crime seems to be most rampant. The national cost is now 51.1 billion (51.1 thousand million) dollars a year, equal to more than 5 percent of the gross national product of one trillion dollars. And crime is not confined to the “gangster” element. An enormous amount (eight billion dollars a year) is stolen by executives and trusted employees.

But really fear inspiring are the crimes of violence and crimes against property. It is increasingly unsafe to walk the streets of U.S. cities, and a survey reveals that such danger from crime is increasing almost everywhere.

In the United States, F.B.I. figures reveal, crime increased eleven times as fast as the population. Serious crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, auto theft, larceny [of fifty dollars and over]) went up 148 percent, from 2,014,600 in 1960 to 4,989,700 in 1969.

In London, which has long been known for its freedom from street violence, Britishers are becoming alarmed as assaults, robberies and muggings have increased. A special police squad has been assigned to the Underground (railroad subway system) because of the crime menace. “It is not safe at night in Birmingham,” said a police official. Violent crimes in Great Britain went up from 26,000 in 1966 to 41,000 in 1970. And a similar situation confronts other countries.

What signs of remedy from human rule do you see for these problems?

THE DRUG PROBLEM

Drug abuse has been called “the worst sickness in American history,” and is rapidly becoming such in other nations. It has been a major factor in the skyrocketing crime rate. Art Linkletter, radio and television personality, whose own daughter was a victim of drugs, in a speech before a special United Nations audience in New York city, September 14, 1971, made a strong plea for action on the part of government. His speech made very clear that human rulership had failed in some way to provide people’s needs, hopes and desires. Linkletter asked:

“If an empty, agonizing life drives people to drugs, how do we change that life? Why are there so many suicides in the world? Why do so many arrive at a personal crisis unable to face it, resolve it, overcome it? Why is drug abuse so often a part of the tragic picture?”

In his concluding appeal Linkletter implied that human rulership had pointed its aims in the wrong direction. He said:

“For the sake of the human family, the United Nations must reach out to those in trouble. Our world is torn by great debate, but the outcome will not matter if our children are wasted. Our scientists chart our course in the heavens, but we need not make the trip if we leave behind a world in pain.”

MALNUTRITION

Robert S. McNamara, President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, paints a world picture of malnutrition that should awaken one to the inability of human rulership to bring mankind the essentials for happiness. In a speech delivered in Washington, D.C., before the Board of Governors of the World Bank Group, September 27, 1971, he said that in the less advantaged countries malnutrition is widespread, is a major cause of high mortality among young children and is therefore a major barrier to human development.

“And yet,” McNamara observes, “despite the evidence that with a relatively small per capita expenditure of resources major gains can be achieved, there is scarcely a nation in the developing world where a concerted attack on the problem is underway.”

Mr. McNamara went on to point out that the number of childhood deaths is enormous in the poorer countries. For example, in India there are large areas where deaths in the first year of life number as many as 150 to 200 per thousand live births.

In the United Arab Republic, the proportion of children between the ages of one and two who die is more than 100 times as high as in Sweden.​—Vital Speeches of the Day, Oct. 15, 1971.

Even earlier in Reader’s Digest, February 1969, a noted scientist commented: “It is shockingly apparent that, in the battle to feed humanity, our side has been routed. . . . it is already too late to prevent a drastic rise in the death rate through starvation.”

POVERTY AND WELFARE

Fundamentally a basic cause of malnutrition is poverty, a problem so far insurmountable and unsolvable, even in the most affluent countries. Dr. John E. Reilly, Senior Fellow of the Overseas Development Council, reports:

“According to the World Bank, income levels per year in developing continents as of 1968 were as follows: Asia $110; Africa $130; Latin America $370; Middle East $330. This compares with the average per capita income in the United States of $4,000; Canada​—$2,500; Germany $1,900; United Kingdom $1,800.

Dr. Reilly goes on to say that in the low-income countries there are literally millions living on half of the average. Are the efforts of world rulership, even with the help of the United Nations, overcoming this sad condition? No, for Dr. Reilly says: “There is fear that the actual standard of living of millions of people is lower in 1971 than it was in 1960.” He continues:

“This gives a brief sketch of the conditions of the developing countries, one that does not adequately convey the total picture of widespread hunger, deprivation, absence of educational opportunity, unequal distribution of wealth, the prevalence of disease, not to mention political repression.”

Even in the world’s richest country, the United States, entire cities are facing a financial crisis, due to the avalanche of welfare costs. In 1970, $12.8 billion dollars was the cost of welfare.

The situation is one from which economists see no escape, as illustrated by economist Procter Thomson of Claremont Men’s College in California. He points out that, in an affluent society, as more and more money is supplied for welfare, those receiving help make demands that build up to the supply. Therefore, he says, “poverty pursues society like a shadow following a running man.”

THE POPULATION EXPLOSION

With the population at its present level, the governments are near the breaking point, with problems on every hand and what appears to be a dead end in each avenue. That is bad enough, but now the added population growth throws an aura of doom over their plans for the future. In a report of the Victor-Bostrom Fund for the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Rudolph Peterson, Administrator of the United Nations Development Program, commented:

“The staggering growth of world population casts a dark shadow over all our efforts to promote international development. To improve living conditions in countries where the population doubles every 20 years is like the labour of Sisyphus, eternally pushing a rock uphill only to see it roll down again.”

And A. H. Boerma, Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization, makes a very urgent appeal:

“I do not need to dwell on the fact that the present unrestrained upsurge in the number of people on this planet is driving the world’s major problems​—hunger, poverty and unemployment—​toward the brink. I do not need to describe the horrors which would result and it is not for me to go into the details of what should be done. . . . But from this rostrum I should like to make an appeal to all concerned to accept the need for population control.”

What, then, can be said for the record of human rulership? Has it actually solved even one of mankind’s basic problems of living together in peace, freedom from want, fear, hunger, deprivation and crime? Has it given mankind what they really desire from government?

What, then, is ahead for continued man-rule of earth? Every problem​—pollution, war, hunger, drugs, or any one of several others—​has in itself the potential to bring global catastrophe. Together they constitute a complex situation that human wisdom and efforts have utterly failed to minimize, much less solve.

Is it not time for man to look for higher counsel, yes, time to listen to the Divine Ruler of the universe? What he says and what he purposes as to earth’s rulership is a matter of life or extinction, as will be discussed in the following article.

[Graph on page 614]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

CRIME

Serious crime in U.S.A. increased eleven times as fast as the population, 1960-1969.

POPULATION

CRIME

[Picture on page 612]

WAR History’s record shows arms races have ended either in war or economic collapse.

[Picture on page 613]

POLLUTION “The big question . . . is whether the concern about the environment has come too late to do much good.”

[Picture on page 614]

DRUGS Drug abuse is a “sickness” that is a major factor in the skyrocketing crime rate.

[Picture on page 615]

POVERTY “Poverty pursues society like a shadow following a running man.” Yearly welfare cost in U.S.A.​—$12,800,000,000

1. What must be said as regards that which human rulership has given all mankind thus far, and what about basing hope for the future on the outworking of the evolution theory?

WHAT can “divine rulership” give to all mankind that human rulership has not already given to the human race? That which human rule has given all mankind till now has certainly not been “divine,” as we oftentimes call something that is “surpassingly excellent.” Judged in the light of the way that things are going in this world, human rule promises to give us nothing better than what it has already given us thus far. And that is far from being soul-satisfying. Really it is very disappointing. During all the centuries and millenniums past, humankind has proved that all that it can give us people in the way of government rulership is human rulership. Since humankind is imperfect, it has been imperfect human rulership. The widely held theory of the evolution of man furnishes us no grounds for hoping that men will evolve, during our generation or in the hundreds of millions of years to come, into gods, by sudden “mutations” of a surprising and beneficial kind. Hope for relief from present world distress cannot be based on human rulership.

2. (a) What has hope been explained to be, and what kind would a hope for all mankind be? (b) How does the United Nations rate as a world hope, and what if it were put out of action?

² Practically the whole world of mankind has been left hopeless. Hope has been explained to be “expectation of something desired,” or, “desire accompanied by expectation of its being satisfied.” Hope may also be taken to mean “a person or thing that expectations are centered in.” All of us have petty individual hopes and fears, but would it not be wonderful if there was a hope in which all mankind could share, regardless of race, color, nationality or social position? It would be wonderful, indeed, for it would be nothing selfish, nationalistic, racial, but it would satisfy the common desires and needs of all mankind. The United Nations as an organization for world peace and security, after nearly thirty years of operation, has failed to be or to provide such a hope. The adding of more nations to it as members will not turn its failure into success. On a world scale, the United Nations has been the biggest thing that mankind has been able to offer for urgent human needs. Many persons wonder, If the United Nations were to be forcibly put out of action as the previous League of Nations was, what else would there be for mankind to offer?

3. What yearning do the many persons have whose hopes based on men have been blasted?

³ There is no doubt about it: mankind is at its wit’s end! The number of thoughtful persons is increasing who honestly admit that human rulership has failed. Their hopes based on man have been blasted. The saddest thing about it is that they have no further hope with which to comfort themselves and to comfort others. All they now have is a yearning for something, a craving for something that has no definite shape or sharp outline in their minds, without any idea of how or from where this heart-satisfying thing is to come or can be expected.

4. How have world conditions affected the hopes of some expectant persons, and so they are unlike what mariners?

⁴ However, although the already desperate and continually worsening world conditions have killed the hopes of unnumbered persons, these very same conditions imparted fresh vigor to the heightened hopes of others. They are not like the mariners who go down to the sea in ships and who are caught in a terrible storm, concerning whom the ancient lyric writer says: “They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit’s end.”​—Ps. 107:23-27, Authorized Version.

5. (a) What sound advice of the psalmist do these exceptional persons follow? (b) Contrary to what theories, there is what beyond human rulership to which to look?

⁵ Who are these exceptional persons, whose hopes keep getting brighter and brighter as the world distress continues and worsens? What have they got that other people do not have? These are the ones who follow the sound advice of the ancient lyric writer who said: “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.” (Ps. 146:3, 4) That ancient writer advised us not to pin our hopes to human rulership, and so those following this advice today look beyond human rulership. But where else is there to look? Those who uphold the theory of human evolution and those who follow the philosophical theory of materialism say there is nothing else to look to but material things like humans. That is why they find themselves hopeless and will at last become desperate. Their theories are not only unsatisfying but also unconvincing, for they are unreasonable and contrary to the facts of history. But there is indeed something beyond human rulership to which to look. What is that? Divine rulership! To this the hopeful people of today look!

The Thing in Which to Center Our Hopes

6. To what is it that the ancient writer points us in Psalm 146:5-10?

⁶ To this the ancient lyric composer points us. Speaking from his own experience and observation, he continues on to say: “Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in Jehovah his God, the Maker of heaven and earth, of the sea, and of all that is in them, the One keeping trueness to time indefinite, the One executing judgment for the defrauded ones, the One giving bread to the hungry ones. Jehovah is releasing those who are bound. Jehovah is opening the eyes of the blind ones; Jehovah is raising up the ones bowed down; Jehovah is loving the righteous ones. Jehovah is guarding the alien residents; the fatherless boy and the widow he relieves, but the way of the wicked ones he makes crooked. Jehovah will be king to time indefinite.”​—Ps. 146:5-10.

7. Who, then, today need this divine ruler, and how outstanding is his name?

⁷ Because of human rulership and its shortcomings and inabilities, are you one of the “defrauded ones,” or of the “hungry ones”? Are you one of “those who are bound,” or of the “blind ones,” or of the “ones bowed down”? Are you an ‘alien resident,’ or a “fatherless boy,” or a “widow”?