Countries

So Boris is recognising the military junta in Myanmar as the de facto government by sending an envoy. I know he's desperate for trade deals, but surely this is going a bit far? 

What is a legitimate government? In the West we maintain it's a democratically elected government, but that's antithetical to many regimes around the world. A whole bunch are absolute monarchies, such as Saudi and numerous Emirates (to whom we sell weapons, so they can't be that bad). Others are theocracies, such as Iran and Afghanistan (within a few days). A small number are dictatorships of the left or the right. I suppose it depends on pragmatism and international recognition as to whether we consider them legitimate - and whether they are willing to buy our weapons and technology.

To bring things to the present, it strikes me that Afghanistan isn't even a country by most definitions. The vast majority of countries have evolved through, and are defined by, a common language and set of customs, but there are some 14 ethnic groups in Afghanistan, of which the Pashtun are the majority (40%~50%), but they're not evenly distributed. It's a hotch-potch mosaic - no wonder there's strife. The Afghans may be easy to conquer, but impossible to rule.

Countries which are constructs, such as those with a myriad different ethnic areas amalgamated by arbitrary borders, seem to be the ones that are most unstable. The breakup of empires, especially those that forced different ethnic groups to mix, seems to lay the groundwork for future conflict - arbitrary demarcation lines bring problems. 

We like to deride Afghanistan as a tribal society but, when you think of it, the UK is also a tribal society - and a construct. The Welsh hill tribes do not identify as much other than Welsh, the Scottish Nationalist Party is making great gains in Scotland (the Tories and Labour have only 7 seats between them)  and the Tory Taliban is most concerned with consolidating its hold on England, but wants the other tribal areas to remain under its control. Northern Ireland is a special case. 

While we're as much of a construct as Afghanistan, we do have democracy and most of our tribal fighting was done centuries ago when the English managed to impose their dominance, although the fault lines appear to be opening once more.

Is democracy all it's cracked up to be? It's a balancing act between the poor and the rich, with the middling sort casting the die. There are undoubtedly more poor than rich and therefore there is a danger of a tyranny of the poor. The ancient Greeks overcame this by giving the poor a vote, but limiting their access to power by providing a selection of candidates for power from within their class alone. Only in the most extraordinary circumstances were those from the lower ranks of society provided with a platform for candidacy.

Major political parties today have the same strategy, although the left now has its own candidates, thus breaking the stranglehold of the rich on power. Yet the wealthy are gradually infiltrating the corridors of leftist power.

I sometimes wonder whether the franchise should be restricted to those who have earned the right to vote by giving something of themselves to the state. Say a minimum 1 or 2 year period of Public Service on leaving school, which I would interpret as any position that is paid for from the public purse - any government service at all, whether that be in the military, the NHS, local government, national politics or sweeping the streets, etc. 

Those who merely wish to take from the state would have no say in how the state was run. Harsh? I don't think so - everyone would have the chance to do this stint of Public Service and give something of themselves back to the community after their state education - even the wealthy and self-entitled, who probably need it most and for whom it would open eyes. Of course there would be exceptions that need to be teased out, such as the mentally incompetent - which would rule out those currently in government having any vote whatsoever.