As I see it, the closest
thing to a perfect government that can be attained, prior to the prophesied
Thousand-Year Reign of Christ and the Saints, would be one in which the titular
head of state would be the highest-ranking ecclesiastic in the land; the actual
ruler would be appointed by the head of state, and subject to removal from
office by him at any time. (The head of state could delegate this authority if
he considered himself too busy to make such decisions.) The power of the ruler,
whom one might call a prime minister or a chancellor, would thus be checked by the
potentiality of his dismissal.
My ideal regime would not be
theocracy. (I don't know what it would be called—therefore, since it’s
my brainchild, I suggest the name “domanism”—, since, so far as I know, there
has never been an example of it; indeed, there probably never will be. It might
be realized in some country where people still keep an open mind about
politics, but not here in the USA, where it's a secular heresy to suggest that
our method of governance is anything but the sole legitimate one, and where,
because of the founding of the USA on a political rather than an ethnic basis,
radically altering the Constitution would likely be seen as eliminating our
"national" raison d'être.) In fact, along with prisoners,
minors, and others clearly unfit to hold office, the top ecclesiastic would be
the only person who would not be eligible to serve as prime minister or
chancellor or whatever. (It would not be what we incorrectly call "democracy"
either, but more on that next.)
My reason for designating
the top church official as the sole elector is that such a person is more
reliable than anyone else for choosing a wise leader, and I'm afraid that it
now ought to be evident to the well-informed that we the people can no longer be entrusted with such a
responsibility. To give just one example of why I think so: Shortly after the
catastrophic 2008 US elections, I read the results of a public-opinion survey,
according to which respondents considered the Democratic Party to be
"center-right." It seems to me that our political system, in which
the public select politicians to represent them, is viable only if the voters
are astute enough to elect the best candidates for high office; when the
populace is so deluded that it views as "center-right" a party which
had never been more thoroughly dominated by leftists, how can anyone believe
that what we call "democracy" still works?
