A governing body, regardless of its setup, should be formed from members of the society it governs. The nature of the members of this society will shape the governing body for good or ill. Such a governing body will have a mandate from the society it governs and will be in a position to exercise its governing function.

Those who cannot see the problem (the ignorant) Those who choose not to see the problem because they benefit from it (the willful) Those who ignore the problem in order to attend to the biological imperatives of health, family, etc. (the clouded) Those who see the problem and cannot act (the powerless) Those who see the problem and do not know how to act (the confused) The who know the problem and do not act (the corrupt)

Those who can't see

Those who do but cannot act

Those who can act but don't

The flaying of the corrupt

For more posts in this series see:

Who are the undesirables?The efficacy of a government at its root depends on two factors, the system within which it operates, and the members who constitute it. This is true whether the governing body is a single person, group of people, or the collective society itself.How to define governmental efficacy, or what features comprise a good system are outside the scope of this writing, and will be covered at a later date.The aim here is to discuss who should form that government, and who are the undesirables.This will be based on the following propositions:Following from this it becomes of critical importance exactly which people are and are not members of this new society. Ignoring skill, experience, etc., such a society should not include any members who are not aligned with the society over which they may be in a position to govern in order to ensure the continuing alignment of the government with the aims and principles of the governed.From this point forward the term 'morality' will be used to refer to this alignment. Morality is rooted in the society, and to be against the collective will is to be immoral.To avoid any misunderstanding, let it be explicitly said here, that gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, wealth (or lack of it), and education (or lack of it), are not determining factors in a person's moral quality, and therefore not determinants of a person's ability to govern, or eligibility to be included in society. I firmly believe that the majority of human beings on the planet can be included.So let's focus on who cannot.If you accept that the current state of governance, all along its spectrum from democracy to communism, socialism to capitalism, monarchies, theocracies, juntas, and corporate states, are not worth preserving in their entirety, then it is only a small step to recognize that each are only a manifestation of root problems. Variations on a flawed theme. A theme that needs to be erased so a new system can grow in its place. A system that can be built on the knowledge we now know of what does and does not work.In this current system people can be classified according to their orientation towards improving the collective well-being of the society of which they are a part.They are:Finer divisions are possible, for example of those who do not see some can be shown, and some cannot, but for our purposes today lets reduce these six even further.The majority of people fall into the category of those who are aware, or are capable of being made aware, but are powerless to act. From this list, these are the only people who can be included in a society that has a governing body truly capable of representing it.The ignorant who can not see would never be in a place where they could participate in governing. There is simply no way to ensure that their actions would be consistent with the morality of society. At best, any action they took would only randomly align, at worst, their course could be directed by false reasoning opposed to the course of revolutionThe alternative is to allow them to be members of this society who are barred from participating it its governance. Such a course of action though would contradict the first proposition, as the government would no longer be representative of all the people it governs. Additionally, this has already been shown to be a corrosive element in a society, and as in the body, when a hormone defects, it will defect throughout the whole system.How to determine who falls into this category is more complicated, and will not be touched on here. To eliminate one possible interpretation, however, this is not a position in support of inclusion based on 'intelligence'. Intelligence is not defined sufficiently to serve as a means of judgement, and current psychometric tests are significantly biased towards particular cultures and economic classes.The there are the corrupt. Defined here as those with means who oppose a revolution either through inaction, or active suppression. There exclusion from society is a must. These people can be counted on to intentionally subvert the system for contrary aims.It is a critical success factor of a future revolution to determine exactly who are the corrupt ones in such as way that will allow following generations to identify the individual characteristics that must be modified or excluded from a future society.These people and their predecessors bear the responsibility for the current state of things, and the anarchy during the transition leading to the revolution being proposed here will likely see debts of blood called in regardless of what the agents of change do or do not advocate.For the undesirables, the means to identify and exclude them cannot be fully determined until the new society begins to take place. Such a society should not be burdened with having to make decisions against its future morality. The proper course of action against them will flow naturally from that new social framework as it develops, and it is not for me to say what course that should be.Leave nothing intact.