The Power and Responsibility of the People

Naming of Trees is rarely easy Often the best name is contingent on how the framework is being used. . We can refer to these two Trees via their structure or via their internal duality.

Via Structure:

The Spiral Tree (CH-Tree) and
the Structural Hierarchy Tree (CsH-Tree)
are shown side by side below without Channel names.

Via Internal Duality:

The CH-Tree depicts the relations and influences between the people and the powerful in society.

The CsH-Tree depicts states and processes in changing society through participation in politics.

The CH-Tree exists inside the CsH-Tree 

All Levels in the CH-Tree are found within each (single) Level of the CsH-Tree. This is due its origin from the structural hierarchy—review the diagram in Step #4. Probably, the whole of the CH-Tree exists within CG1 of the CsH-Tree.

To clarify my Social Commitment-CG1 and any political action I might take, it could be meaningful for me to reflect on my position and activities in terms of the CH-Tree.

Channels

Channel names are not shown in either graphic, but they have been formally proposed for the CH-Tree. Assistance from members is requested for the nature and names of the Channels in the CsH Tree.

Assuming not too many errors, names of the Centres and the progression of Levels (shown on the side of each Tree) should help get our minds around what is being represented.

Both Trees are about «political choices for society», but they handle this differently as shown by their components. The L4Centres may seem rather alike, but they are unequivocally different: government solutions (CH-Tree) are not the same as inquiries to generate proposals (CsH-Tree).

The internal duality of the CH-Tree is:

Social Life as context for Political Life
i.e. The People v The Powerful

The internal duality of the CsH-Tree is:

Change in Society as context for Participation in Politics
i.e. Sources of Power v The People.

The differing positions of «the people» in these Trees—at the top of one and the bottom of the other—confirm the assumptions with which the inquiry into politics commenced.

Although «the people» cannot do much to influence «the powerful» in society as regard to ordinary government choices (CH-Tree), «the people» are, potentially at least, the powerful ones when it comes to generating any significant change. They control the «sources of power» in society, if they but choose to recognize that.

Political maturity seems to be primarily a matter of Willingness (RL7/PH7) on the part of the people en masse to claim and assert both responsibility and power.

The CH-Tree maps what can, does and should govern choices for a society. It gives no indication how people in society can participate or what drives changes.

Example:

Bill runs a small firm and is unhappy with government policy in his industry. Should Bill become politically active (G2 in the CsH Tree)?  

When Bill reviews his situation using the CH-Tree, he notes that his L1-industry organization focuses on the interests of its larger members. So, there is no help from CL3_P or CL3_S. He also notes that many smaller firms have been driven out (CL5_P) and that public opinion is clueless and viewless (CL5_S).

Although the need (CL7) for Bill’s sort of service exists, there is no cultural-ethical support (CL6S). In sum, it seems pointless to get politically involved. Bill would do better by selling out and starting in a new area—but adding a political analysis to his usual commercial analyses to ensure he is aligned with socio-political forces.

You may say Bill would work all this out himself without the framework—because it’s just common sense. If so, you are validating the model: THEE claims to be not much more than a map of common sense.

«Power and the Powerful» form the basis. We note that the extremes of group struggles at L1 can be progressively brought under control, more or less,

• by CL2-Law,
• the CL3-Officials, and
• even CL4-Government solutions

but the corrupting influence of Representatives-CL3 of powerful groups-CL1 on Government Officials-CL3 is so strong that all 3 Levels easily combine to give the powerful even more power.

«The People» in the CH-Tree are represented:

• initially as a mass, the social context of popular opinion, sentiment and choices-CL5. This is something too diffuse to act but still weighty in its effects, including being able to affect political players-CL3;
• then by the moral context of culture and personal principles-CL6 whose regulatory effects often seem to be silent or to dominate in a ways that may seem irrational or wrong to outsiders; and
• finally, the personal context of human needs-CL7, which take the form of everyone finding ways to work, associate and transact for themselves and others in their community.

Given that most human needs are better managed through people acting and associating on their own behalf privately, the government solutions seem to be determined primarily by Centres in the lower half of the Tree—where individuals are directly involved (CL3) and groups struggle self-interestedly (CL1).

Solutions chosen by governments appear to be dominated by interest groups-CL1 and their officials-CL3, combined with parochial interests of politicians and public bureaucrats-CL3 with corruption varying according to local norms.

Sometimes particular needs-CL7 manifest forcibly and «compel» a government to act. More often, government action is justified in terms of unmet needs-CL7. But whenever such action displaces private activity and encourages reliance on government, moral hazards are generated.

The CsH-Tree is a picture of how political tensions need to be handled. It shows how (in principle) people can and should participate so as to determine choices and changes in society. It gives no indication of the forces that affect how people think about politics and look after themselves.

«The People» form the basis in this Tree. Every member is viewed as an autonomous agent with a dependence on and hence a commitment to society. So each of us must recognize Social responsibility-CG1. However, the involvement of people in politics is quickly limited by inherent difficulties:

• the demands of Political work-CG2 can be unpleasant in the extreme;
• efforts in Mobilization-CG3 are time-consuming and exhausting;
• there is complexity inherent in developing and digesting policy proposals-CG4.

Nevertheless, genuine Responsibility-CG1 entails a readiness for Mobilization-CG3 if the views of The People are ever to prevail.

«Power and the Sources of Power» emerge …

• initially as the Authorization arrangements for choices-CG5; and then
• controlled by a Political will-CG6 inherent in society-as-a-whole; and finally
• by Stability via mass action-CG7, recognized by everyone but difficult to alter.

Within Stability-CG7, conflict develops between tensions emerging from discontents and action, leading (ideally) to peaceful but forceful participation. Pressures play out in part by influencing Policy-oriented inquiries-CG4, and partly by generating greater Social responsibility-CG1 by the people involved.

The stage of maturation of political institutions probably plays the dominant role in both the quality of policy proposals and the process by which proposals are developed and appraised.

In the earliest stages of political evolution, governments remain determined to be more powerful than the people, and the people acquiesce to their infantilization and subservience. In effect, politics is not legitimized.