Ideology

The Expectation from Government

Should a government work for some people, most people, or all of the people?

Ideally, it should work for all of the people.

However, that is not practically possible, But still, certain things can be, or has to be guaranteed, provided, or worked for all of the people (like safety), otherwise the purpose of a government is defeated, and it becomes either one that is self-serving, or one that serves the interest of a few (which usually is the wealthy and the powerful). Such a government is either the product of a perverted society, or the society becomes the product of a perverted government.

“Which came first? The Chicken or the egg?”
Which came first? The perverted society? Or The perverted government?

One may ask, then how come people are managing in such places like Iran, India, Ghana, Sudan, Afghanistanm or North Korea? Because, compared to the government’s of the developed countries (or Canada, inour context) How is day today life in places like these? How is business, and how is that they have an economy? How are these countries even existing? A westerner that had never travelled might be surprised that people live in such places, and it also seems that they are happy? For example, there are 1.4 billion people in India. Of course there are lot’s of people that wan’t to emigrate from India and they try, but not to the tune of a billion people. How come? How are people living in these countries with such bad governments?

Because of the expectations from their government (is too low).

But the consequence of that is “national, social, and humanistic decay”

Take Saudi Arabia, for example. Despite its immense oil wealth, it lags behind societies like Sweden, Norway, or Denmark in fostering social, cultural, and intellectual development. While we lack a standardized metric for measuring human potential, indicators like education quality, freedom of expression, and innovation suggest a significant gap.

On the other day Elon Musk tweeted that “Canada is not a real country” (and later deleted it), but the truth is, if we compared to places like Saudi, which by the way is a kingdom, Canada could be the most closest to what a real country could be, it has a government, which is run by the westminster style of parliamentary politics, though it defers to the government on administrative decisions, it has a separate judiciary, there is freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of movement, the church and state is seperated (though we still have government funded catholic schools, but that is fine as an educational system that also involves character building).

In the end it all comes to the longevity of the country—of we define a country as having a continous constituition, and instituitions that defend the constituition. Like for example, is today’s Syria the same country as the one under Bashar Assad’s rule? Is Afghanistan, the same country before the taliban simply walked and and took over? By the way, that is another thing—people fighting for one’s country.

“Of the some 800 Newfoundlanders who went into battle that morning, only 68 were able to answer the roll call the next day, with more than 700 killed, wounded or missing. The dead included 14 sets of brothers, including four lieutenants from the Ayre family of St. John’s.”

A government that neglects its people shouldn’t be surprised when they fail to stand by it in crisis—history shows they’ll let invaders or rivals waltz in unchallenged. In Iraq, 2003, U.S. forces took Baghdad as Iraqi soldiers, hollowed out by a regime that hoarded oil wealth, shed uniforms and melted into the streets. Afghanistan’s army, unpaid and ignored, abandoned posts in 2021, letting the Taliban reclaim Kabul with scarcely a shot fired. Syria’s unraveling in December 2024 fits the pattern—Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia as rebels swept Damascus, his army evaporating after decades of his family’s iron grip left loyalty brittle. Yet, contrast this with Newfoundland in 1916: 800 from the Regiment charged Beaumont-Hamel with no one twisting their arms—by dawn, only 68 answered roll call, over 700 lost, including 14 brother pairs, all for a land they held dear. A nation earns that kind of fight; neglect just breeds surrender.

That’s an extreme case we are talking about. Nobody is going to walk into Canada tomorrow and say “Hey, this country is now mine” —Trump is saying that, and we take him seriously, because he has a sharpie in his hand, and he signs on probably without even reading what he is signing, Trump is taunting us on a daily basis, but Canadians have come together like never before , and US grocery imports is now 10% lower than it usually is.

Should we not pass on this credit to 150 years of democracy and politics that ensured that the government takes care of the people according to how the Canadian society will treat its own people?

The Political Ideology

Across faiths and cultures, struggle defines existence. In the Old Testament, God curses Cain to a life of toil (Genesis 4:12), while Job endures relentless hardship. Hindu philosophy ties karma to dharma—duty as righteousness—exemplified in the Vyada Gita, where a butcher persists in his grueling task despite temptations. Similar metaphors echo through other traditions, suggesting that without struggle, life loses meaning. This isn’t just human; it’s universal. Take the lion, dubbed the king of the jungle: despite its prowess, it fails in roughly 75% of its hunts, succeeding only about 25% of the time, as observed in Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park (Schaller, 1972, The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations, University of Chicago Press, link to book overview). Even this apex predator wrestles with survival, proving struggle’s grip on all life. Without it, neither human nor beast would push forward—existence itself hinges on the fight.

But guess what will happen if a political party go and tell people “Struggle is the essence of life”, the door will be immediately shut in our face. Well, it is not that people does not know that. They do know that struggle is a major and defining part of life, and that is why people in India, Iran, or Ghana do not expect much from thier government, and that is also another reason those governments make people to struggle.

But Canadians know that the government is rich, and they know that is because the society is rich and the contry is rich. Hence the expectation from the government increases. And because o this richness, or economical prosperity, Canadians also tend to become more comtemplative or more philsophical of human existence. Exactly here, one can ask, why is it then it is not the case with Americans? Why is it then not the case with the Saudis? Do you know what the vision of the Saudis is for the year 2030? A vibrant society, A thriving economy, An ambitious nation. Why are they investing money to earn more money? Don’t they already have enough? The same applies to USA, Why do they want to “Make America Great Again”, isn’t America already great? he U.S. has about 22 million millionaires and 800 billionaires, totaling roughly 22,000,800 wealthy individuals as of early 2025. What more do they want to make America great?

What has humbled Canadians is a combination of one, thier english heritage, and two the greatness of the Canadian land, and three, thier prolonged interaction with the indigenous of Canda. I believe that makes Canada a unique people, hence they built a unique society, hence they have a unique politcs, hence they have a unique government.