This “definition” has been cobbled together
from three of my posts on my political blog .
·
from https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-hierarchy-of-needs-for-nations.html
:
A “hierarchy of needs” for nations
In 1943, the psychologist Abraham
Maslow proposed a “Hierarchy
of Needs“, in the context of “human motivation”.
This approach posited that there were
fundamental physiological needs (such as food, water, and shelter) which
needed to be met first, after which other needs (described as “safety”, then
“love / belonging” in the above-referenced Wikipedia article) which must be
met, before one can move on to meeting one’s need for self-esteem, and then the
final step of being “self-actualising” - to, to pinch a phrase, be all one can
be.
It’s a concept that has become quite
popular, and I consider it has consider merit, although I think the order above
physiological and safety needs may vary - and Maslow apparently also understood
the variation, as did others, some of whom also considered changes were needed
to the hierarchy. As an example, Paul
K Chappell
writes about variations to the Hierarchy of Needs in “The Cosmic Ocean” (pp.
376 - 386; Prospecta Press, Westport, ISBN 978-1-63226-009-3, e-book ISBN
978-1-63226-010-3, Amazon
[e-book]
), eventually concluding that physical and spiritual (purpose and
meaning) needs exist in parallel.
I consider that, for humans, the principle
that some needs are relatively fundamental, and that others are generally met after
those more basic needs have been met, is reasonably correct. There are
variations to the order, and the variations depend not only on the individual,
but also where the individual is at in their life, so it is a kaleidoscope of
complex, changing, and interconnected aspects.
I am also going to propose that nations
also have a kaleidoscope of needs - but that those aren’t
the “needs” set out by legal expectations around sovereignty,
nor the pronouncements of political elites, both of which have been overthrown
by war (i.e., invasions) and/or revolution.
No, I’m going to approach this from the
point of view of the nation being, firstly and foremost, a set of people, with
location and other matters (some being those political matters I alluded to)
in common, including a
sense of identity.
My apologies for being brief on this. As
always, my time and energy are limited (and our cat is demonstrating the cat
hierarchy of his need for pats outweighs everything else ☺
).
So . . . what is the most basic need?
I’m going to suggest that it is the same
as for individuals : basic physical
needs, with a fair bit of overlap.
If your citizens don’t have adequate food,
water, shelter, etc, there is a good chance they will rebel (whether
successfully or not is irrelevant for this exercise) or they will be unable
to create an economy that will enable the nation to exist in any reasonably
independent way - and they certainly would be neither inclined nor probably
capable of physically defending the borders of said nation, so one of the first
legal definitions of a nation (able to defend its borders - which is a bit
of a moot definition in the era of superpowers) also won’t be met.
This also touches on the issue of human
rights, as that field points out that the various generations of rights (first
generation being civil and political rights, then we get into social rights,
including environmental, cultural, and aspirational) are interconnected
: you cannot have a properly functioning
economy without freedom (otherwise it is more or less despotic to some
degree, with people being serf-like to some extent).
In my opinion, basic forms of social
security rightfully belong to this level, although it will need an economy
and functioning governance systems to provide it. Nevertheless, being able to
ensure people do not starve to death on the streets is a key part of this
For the next level, I’m going to propose
education and access to accurate information.
Education and literacy
are crucial to lifting people out of poverty, and here, in the
industrialised West, we have become so used to nearly ubiquitous literacy that
we have taken it for granted, much as a fish takes water for granted. Yet it is
so vital, it must be acknowledged.
I also include numeracy
in this, and a free
and independent
media, as access to trustworthy information about the government and what is
happening is vital to enable people to live their lives as well as they can,
and for creating that sense of identity I referred to above (the link I gave
is worth reading : it emphasises that
sense of identity and, perhaps strangely, law abiding behaviour, as being
crucial in being a citizen).
Third :
security - of borders (in the sense of the definition of sovereignty
- being able to defend one’s borders against aggressors, not in the twisted Home
Affairs Minister Dutton
sense of unfair
treatment of asylum seekers), against crime (so an effective
police force and criminal justice system, free of corruption and bias, and
independent of rulers, are needed), against corruption of elites and
similar iniquities (including discrimination),
and against lifestyle vicissitudes such as unemployment and health problems,
including the various forms of disability. Without this set of matters being
met, there will be no economy (corruption kills that off - just look at what
happened in Uganda
under Idi
Amin, Zimbabwe
under Mugabe,
and in the DR
Congo under a succession of people), let alone a defence against
invasion. Furthermore, without the more advanced form of social security and
justice I am referring to (including no-fault divorce, and bans against
discrimination),this nation would simply have the superficial and unstable
façade of stability that many western nations had in the 1950s, where problems
were bottled up and hidden behind front doors, leaving them free to do untold
damage to the nation and its peoples.
No, security and at least basic fairness
and equity are essential at this level.
Fourth comes freedom
(subject to some limits to allow the nation to function as a nation), democracy
(see also here),
and governance,
which goes hand in hand with have a sense of value (and perhaps equality?)
as a citizen.
There is a lot more I will write on this in coming months as I finish and
review some of the books I am currently reading (particularly on political
philosophy), so all I will write for now is that trying to
create a stable democracy in a situation of instability (e.g., being invaded
by another nation) or widespread problems (such as various forms of
oppression) can be difficult. (Moving to democracy is often a cure for
such oppression, however, as demonstrated in South Africa at the end
of apartheid [see also here].)
Fifth is the “infrastructure of the nation”.
Whilst some of this is covered by governance (which provides the
infrastructure of democracy) and freedom (for which the courts and free
press are the infrastructure), there is more infrastructure to be
considered for nation building. This used to be physical (roads and
railways, and, a few centuries ago, market places), but now also includes
electronic infrastructure (the Internet is now crucial), and economic
matters. I sum this item up as : “the
ability to give our children a better life than ours”.
Next, we come to the equivalent of the
individual’s notion of “self esteem”, or what Mr Chappell refers to as meaning
and purpose. For this article, I am going to propose that this is beneficial
impact on other nations, which may impart a sense of what I would hope people
view as nobleness, but suspect they will term “greatness” (SIGH).
The qualification “beneficial” is vital,
as many wars have been fought with other nations to distract a nation’s people
from internal problems, and other wars of conquest are for an unhealthy version
of “greatness” that hides internal problems (including an underperforming
economy).
This level would include humanitarian
aid to other nations, including, in particular, capacity
building, but such aid is often necessary at the level of ensuring one’s
own security - stop a nation “failing“,
and you may well prevent a major need for humanitarian aid; help ensure
fairness and maybe even democracy, and you may prevent a refugee problem (such
as those who fled from behind the Iron
Curtain during the Cold
War), and constructively provide a secure and fair form of
governance, and you may prevent a revolution (like that of Iran in 1979)
that exports violence, possibly even to your shores.
Finally, is there an equivalent for
nations of what self actualisation is for the individual?
I would suggest that, yes, there is, and
it is having a long lasting and beneficial impact on the community of
nations - something like having a key role in establishing something like
democracy (the proto-democracies of Mesopotamia,
India,
and Sparta,
and then Athens),
or the United Nations (I am thinking of the US under FDR
for this one), or something similar (and I cannot think of a third
example . . . ).
OK, so if I put that into a diagram, as is
done for Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the end result is as follows:
I’m already unhappy with quite a few
aspects of this (I would like to write more about legitimacy and its loss
through failure of R2P, for instance), but it will do for a start. I
suspect I could eventually expand this into a small book - if I get the time
and energy ☺
·
from https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2021/12/democracy-needs-human-rights.html
:
The need for human rights
Democracy is a system that ensures - or
should ensure - that those without social power/influence have as equal a
say in how they are governed as the powerful.
This is intended to be accomplished
through the “one person-one vote” principle - to me, that
is the essence of democracy.
However, some
places undermine this by actions such as :
·
sexist or racist restrictions on who can vote (the
original
forms
of democracy excluded,
for instance, slaves and women, and imposed other conditions - such as military
training, or ownership of land - necessitating long struggles for voting
rights [see here;
here,
here,
here,
here,
& here;
here,
here, and
here;
here,
here,
and here]
);
·
imposing qualifications that favour certain
sections of society over others - as the USA has a history and current trend
of doing (see here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
and here);
·
or, in my opinion (IMO), giving businesses votes
(see here,
here,
and here).
My concerns with the latter are that (a) businesses, particularly large
corporations, already have massive economic power (although individual small
businesses don’t), and (b) they are not people.
·
(For others’ thoughts on the topic, see here,
here, here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
and here.
There are also some points on the justification for democracy here
and here,
some criticism here,
and useful thoughts on the evolution / development of democracy in this,
this,
this,
and my post here
[including the many links]. )
·
Democracy depends on a few aspects. Those that I
wish to raise here (there are others - see the links in the preceding
italicised paragraph) are :
·
adequate education on democracy of voters - they
need to know fundamentals such as :
o elections
are held,
o the
purpose of elections is “W” (usually, to elect representatives of the
voters),
o the
rules around elections are “X”,
o the
duties / expectations / accountabilities / rules applying to elected
representatives are “Y” (this also needs to cover what elected
representatives and governments cannot do), and
o when
things go wrong, what can be done is “Z”; (this where an independent
judiciary, which Geoffrey
Robertson writes on clearly in this
and this,
becomes essential);
·
Voters need to be capable of making reasonable
decisions - which is not decisions that agree with others nor what others
consider reasonable, but some sort of mature decision making process . . . and
that validly be based on emotional reactions.
This effectively means some people will be excluded from elections - for
instance, the young (although there is debate about how low the voting age
should be [a cut off no higher than military service, for instance - or perhaps
the age at which criminal responsibility can be assigned would be appropriate .
. . ], no-one would suggest a babe-in-arms or a toddler should be allowed to
vote) or the clinically mentally incompetent, but must NEVER
be judged on the basis of an FBU
or FoC
type reaction (the 1987 film “Nuts“
illustrates some useful points on this).
It should also be kept in mind that such cut offs can be arbitrary - I know
young teenagers who are better able to decide who to vote for than I was when I
started voting and who are better than many older, rigid thinking people (see
also here
and here).
Other aspects of this are :
o Voters
need to be protected against undue influence - which is where the benefits of
the secret ballot (see here,
here,
and here)
become, IMO, self-evident. This is also one of the arguments against having a
voting age that is too low - the risk that at least some children will not vote
as they consider best, but as instructed by their parents . . . which is also a
problem in some workplaces (I have heard managers say people “should” vote
in a certain way) and some militaries (I have seen video of soldiers’
ballots in an overseas nation being checked by their commanding officers).
So this is an important principle, but one that needs to be universally
respected, ensured and protected.
o Voters
also need access to accurate information.
Typically, this is where a free press gets a guernsey, but . . . some parts of
the free press shoot themselves in the foot (by either lurid gossip and
personal abuse, or active proselytising of one political position) and that
destroy the credibility of all the press.
Social media is a mixed bag - it can spread rumours and conspiracy fantasies,
but it can also aid in breaking through misinformation or bias from
governments.
o That
last point also raises the issue of the way public debates are held on issues -
e.g., the so-called postal vote on Equal Marriage (see here, here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
and here ) allowed - as expected - unconscionable conduct (overwhelmingly
on the side of the haters) and created massive divisions, and appears to
have been about the neoliberals’ intention to give neochristian and similarly
religiously motivated haters a big public voice to shout down and actively
attack a minority who outnumbered the haters. That created massive divisions in
our society - for instance, there are places, groups, and people I will avoid
because of the vehement vitriol - rabid outpourings that were really about
wanting people in all the LGBTIQ+ communities dead.
I am now convinced more than ever
that we need strong human rights laws - they enable some protection
against populism, and they also protect against discrimination (on that, we
have no Bill of Rights in our constitution because most of the old white men
who wrote it wanted
to be racist against Chinese people).
It also provides protection against rabid
hate seen during the so-called postal vote, and other forms of direct
and
indirect
discrimination (see also here,
here,
here,
here,
and here)
against minorities - currently seen most clearly in conservative states in the
USA.
On this, see also https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/14/human-rights-are-key-democracy.
Those who are
discriminating against others on the basis of inherent characteristics (such
as gender, sexuality, race, etc) or reasonable / benign and lawful choices (such
as a non-harmful religion) are :
(a) committing acts of active
harm (equivalent emotionally to an “active shooter”) that infringe on
the freedoms of other people and rob society of the contributions of those
people;
(b) making gross mistakes (or “thinking”
and emotion) that are at the babe-in-arms / toddler level of human
evolution / development.
Now, people who have evolved through those
basic levels also make mistakes, but those mistakes tend to be (i) subtler, and
(ii) less damaging. They will still make mistakes - for instance, a
political policy may be flawed - but they don’t commit pogroms, massacres,
and genocides, not create ghettoes nor slavery.
Those people making the gross mistakes are
bigots - that term’s generally disliked, but it means “a person
who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and
prejudices, especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (such
as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance “.
The term fits, as does the reality of the
harm they are doing.
And that is where laws and an effective
justice system come in. In the words of the great Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.
:
It may be true that the law cannot
change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.
A legal / justice system is about ensuring
that the powerful and/or bigoted do not inflict harm on minority groups, and
that no other interference to the existence and efficacy of democracy (such
as corruption or interfering with voting or any other key aspect of democracy
[such as free press]) is permitted to occur. This covers more than only
human rights violations, but our laws, here in Australia, are weakest on the
human rights aspects, which is why I am raising the topic here.
There are a couple of other aspects I wish
to touch on.
Firstly, as Martin Luther King also said
:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere.
We need to be active in ensuring justice
occurs everywhere, much as we need to ensure the COVID-19 pandemic is properly
managed everywhere, or the problems will affect us as well. This, it is good
that we finally
have a Magnitsky-style Act, but we now need to start using
it.
Secondly, there some other Martin Luther
King sayings that merit consideration :
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes
the personality and eats away its vital unity.
(The bigots are haters, and they are harming themselves.)
Darkness cannot drive out darkness;
only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
(Don’t hate the haters - which is difficult when one has been deeply wounded or
scarred by them.)
The arc of the moral universe is long,
but it bends toward justice.
(The struggles for improved suffrage and improved rights are not over, but we
are better off than we were . . . say . . . two centuries ago.)
The ultimate weakness of violence is
that it is a descending spiral. Returning violence with violence only
multiplies violence, add deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
(Use of the legal system, and legitimate political activism and community
education is the best - the only - long term solution.)
In the end, we will remember not the
words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
(We need to ensure others get the benefits of justice and of genuine democracy
as well - and we need to be effective allies along the way. No-one is safe
against the current pandemic until everyone is safe - likewise with democracy
and human rights.)
Finally, a court case against our Premier,
who I consider has done a very hood (not perfect) job of getting us
through the pandemic as a community as safely as possible, had a
court case brought against him by an individual.
The case has
been thrown
out, which I consider the correct decision, but it illustrates the
following :
·
the person was able to bring the case, which is
an example of freedom;
·
the article mentions another person, completely
separate to the person bringing this case, who has been declared a
vexatious litigant because of their use of multiple court cases of little or no
merit against public figures. The fact that it was considered that a law
enabling such declarations to be made, along with the implementation of
anti-corruption, anti-discrimination (including our newly minted
Magnitsky-style Act), and similar laws shows that our democratic system is
not perfect : it needs to continue
evolving.
As do we.
From https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2020/05/in-defence-of-democracy.html
:
In defence of democracy
Democracy has often been portrayed as being
about freedom. It is, but that the common portrayal is a simplification : I consider it is more accurately described as
being based on collective decision making, as opposed to the tyranny of a few
or one imposing their decisions on the many.
The advantages of this include being able
to access the skills of many. A tyranny, including in its authoritarian state
model, imposes rules from the top, and that inherently silences and shuts out
and shuts down creativity and innovation and access to skills & knowledge.
The danger, of course, for a democracy is
casting out minorities through popularism - through making decisions based on
fear of “the other”, whether “the other” is a race, religion, sexuality, gender
identity or women.
Democracy therefore needs to be moderated
by (a) protection of minorities, and (b) education and access to accurate
information (which is where the political right
of freedom to expression comes in). A strong, free and accurate media is
essential for democracy, as is a universal, relevant and effective education (and
I would suggest we have further to go on that at present - particularly around
recognising fake news, being immune to commercial propaganda, and not being
biased).
The strength of a democracy, as opposed to
an authoritarian or other tyranny, is that those with the ability to recognise
a problem, the intelligence to formulate a solution, and the eloquence to
advocate for same, are able to do so.
In authoritarian and other tyrannies,
dissent is silenced, and thus a decision may be made and imposed that is either
neutral or downright bad.
Let’s consider that in the light of the
current pandemic.
In the authoritarian tyranny where this
pandemic is most likely to have originated, the initial decision was made
quickly (“efficiently”), and imposed rapidly. That decision was to deny
that there was a pandemic and suppress knowledge of its existence.
In the thought provoking article “Has
coronavirus shown us the limits of democracy, as life in the West mimics China?”,
by one of our best journalists, Stan Grant, German political theorist and Nazi
Party member Carl Schmitt is cited as having opined that the “checks and
balances” of liberal governments are a weakness, as they impeded decisive
decision making. Well, apart from disputing that checks and balances are the
most defining feature of a liberal society, let alone a democracy (a lot of
overlap there, but not exactly the same thing), the decisive decision
making in China was initially around preserving its power basis. I’ve read a
view that this is around preserving its “basis for legitimacy”, but the nature
of an authoritarian tyranny is that it recognises no other source of legitimacy
than itself, so I consider that argument somewhat specious. In a tyranny,
people don’t have a ready option for opting out, other than a dangerous,
violent and bloody rebellion. Relatively peaceful transitions such as happened
at the end of the Marcos regime in the Philippines are rare.
The response in China that has drawn most
admiration is the SECOND response, which was a decision to
follow medical advice and impose a lockdown that the authoritarian tyranny was
forced into by the failure of it’s initial, “quick and efficient” decision
making. Now, in some aspects that could possibly have been better thought out
than some of the lockdowns in the West (especially around things like access
to groceries), but it had problems, just as did the lockdowns in the West,
and most of those problems in the West are more symptomatic of cut back public
services than democracies - or a liberal society. (And in some cases, they
reflected individuals’ biases towards authoritarianism.)
Those decisions largely reflect the
outcomes of the collective decision making made by those democracies at
elections - decision making that was flawed through imperfect access to
information, perhaps, but we still, as a democratic community, share a collective
responsibility for electing those who made that set of decisions - and that is
a choice no-one in an authoritarian tyranny has. Furthermore, in a few years,
we will have the option of voting them out - again, that is a choice no-one in
an authoritarian tyranny has.
Similarly, the imposition of a lockdown,
including temporary inconveniences (which most of what is being objected to
are) and temporary cession of the relative predominance
of some civil and political rights to the third generation human right to
health is an outcome of the collective decision making we
made.
We, in the liberal democracies of the West,
still have the right to express opinions about this - and that right is being
exercised online, particularly in social media, every day. Some people are
using physical activism, including ignoring lockdown requirements, and that is
inherently trampling on - subjugating - other people’s rights to health. Others
are using their still existing right to freedom of expression, one of our most
important political (first generation) rights, to advocate for following
medical advice more closely.
We are not, we have not suddenly, overnight
become an authoritarian tyranny - despite some of the implementation, including
some police responses, being open to criticism (validly so, in my view).
We are not China or
China-like because of the imposition of a lockdown nor other measures.
However, some of these measures, including
the use of surveillance apps, do have a dangerous potential to be
used to move us towards a more authoritarian state - particularly given
the level of surveillance and commercial surveillance we have agreed to in
recent decades, and it is up to us - all of us, as voters, after this, to be
brave enough to choose the socially responsible, collective decision making
power of democracy.
As the controversial
Benjamin
Franklin is supposed
to have said in response to a question on the form of government the newly
minted USA had : “A republic, if you
can keep it”.
We have a democracy - if we can keep it. It
is at threat, but not because of our right-to-health based response : it is at threat because we, as a collective,
have allowed fear and misinformation to erode our decision making over the last
two decades.
Other links
Some posts, etc of
mine:
·
“Post No. 3,115 - A proposal for a human
rights-respecting democracies bloc at the United Nations” https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2025/05/post-no-3115-proposal-for-human-rights.html
·
“Post No. 3,290 - “Modern Monarchy””
https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2025/10/post-no-3290-modern-monarchy.html
·
https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/search/label/democracy
, https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/search?q=democracy
, https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/search/label/democracy
, https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/search?q=democracy
, and https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
Some additional
links:
·
“Dem_dec: Democratic Decay & Renewal -
Bringing Democracy Defenders Together” https://www.democratic-decay.org/
·
“Can Social Media Activism Actually Work?
- PBS Voices” https://youtu.be/0IkQ-AxJb8A?si=dG_cJ1dev7lSr37E
Yes, is the answer - if it is done correctly
·
“(efficacy of) nonviolent protests”
https://gnwmythrsglossary.blogspot.com/2023/04/efficacy-of-nonviolent-protests.html
including links to “Post No. 1,614 - How Large Do Movements
Have to Be to Succeed?” https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2020/07/post-no-1614-how-large-do-movements.html
and “Powering Learning about Nonviolent Action”
https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/index.php/
“The Global Nonviolent Action Database provides free access to information
about hundreds of cases of nonviolent action, from all continents and most
countries, for learning and for citizen action. The database is a project of
Swarthmore College” and https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/browse
& https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/search/node?keys=
·
“Freedom House” https://freedomhouse.org/
·
“Bertelsmann Transformation Index”
https://bti-project.org/en/
“analyses transformation processes toward democracy and a market economy in
international comparison and identifies successful strategies for peaceful
change”
·
“The president we need”
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-nomination-of-kamala-harris-for
And as
warnings:
·
“The Strongman Fantasy - by Timothy Snyder”
https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-strongman-fantasy
This is excellent writing making points of great importance: I consider it
should be widely read
·
“How Trump is Following H*tl*r's Playbook |
Robert Reich” https://youtu.be/WSxJRIiCNs8?si=WB-a9MGyJPusORp5
·
“What Aristotle Knew About Oligarchy That We
Forgot” https://youtu.be/HMguSl8PHS4
For my original writing ONLY on this blog:
Copyright © Kayleen White 2016-2024 NO AI
I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence
(AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or
other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to
reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise replicate any part of
this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product. Otherwise,
fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Links to others works and excerpts from others works are NOT covered by the hereinbefore, and remain subject to the conditions of the original source.
