3 Fundamental Functions of Government

This publication has stated previously there is a fundamental limitation to government and what it can accomplish. As an American, it can be easy to forget the hardship endured by the less fortunate. There are three elements in the life of citizenry which governments are expected to underpin: food, shelter, and security (not necessarily in that order). All of these things are not expected to be provided to all people (i.e. homelessness is a constant), but the bulk of individuals must perceive reception of the governmental triumvirate.

To illustrate my point, I will point to Russia. An intriguing article, "Failing the Stalin Test," from the January/February 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs talks of ambivalence or ambiguous emotions toward Stalin in a majority of modern Russians. How can the murderer of MILLIONS be seen positively (estimates vary from 20 to 50 million slain)? As a Russian friend of mine eloquently stated, "The people ATE." In a nation where food is in short supply, a leader providing foodstuffs will be glorified. Understand food as an oversimplification of the economy. If the economy is good, then people are eating. If it is poor, there is no work and no money to buy food. So primal is this need that governments (and citizens) will endure the suffering of others if it means a full belly for themselves. Understanding this, I present Stalin and Hitler as two positive economic forces in their respective countries (at least initially). Germans gave Hitler power because he gave them food. There is no need to repeat their atrocities ad nauseam, my point is simply this: food is fundamental. Without food, other government activities are meaningless because their people will be dead or dying.

Shelter is less urgent a need than food, but modern governments are expected to provide protection from nature to their citizens. One needs only to remember the anarchy unfolding on the Gulf Coast last year to understand the ramifications of shelter shortages. I would also point to refugee camps around the world (especially Darfur, see #4) to demonstrate the need for housing.

Which leads me to my final pillar of modern governance; security. As prefaced, even this element does not (indeed, can not) reach every citizen. In certain nations, the fact security is elusive allows the government to maintain order (take our previous tyrants, Hitler & Stalin, for example). The ability of a government to provide security to its citizens exhibits the influence of that government. A government can not provide absolute security to its citizens, but it must maintain a perception of order and the ability to punish those guilty of disrupting that established order. Nations where governmental control does not reach every corner (like Afghanistan or Pakistan) nicely demonstrate the limitation of a national government. Pakistan could be considered a powerful nation; it's a member of the 'nuclear club,' has fought three stalemate wars with India, and yet there are tribal regions which have never experienced the tactile sensation of a national government (at least until recently, with some support).

This all relates back to my initial concept; the fundamental limitations of government. Government is not an all powerful entity. It is composed of men and women; human beings with the same qualities (and shortcomings) as everyone else. Keep that in the forefront of your mind when considering the ability of government in accomplishing anything. As I've pointed out, governments have trouble just sticking to the fundamentals.