Over the recent days, I've been brainstorming a new political ideology. Perhaps my philosophizing  stemmed from my own emotional troubles, which I've mostly overcome and have no desire to talk about here, which translated into deep thought. That ended up combining with a growing mistrust of democracy. Of course the base idea of democracy is a good one; however, the uninformed (and more dangerously, misinformed) populace has been lulled into a docile state of mind. The immediate, shallow problems are realized, of course, and leaders are elected or removed to solve those issues through a representative government system. But the ulterior motives of such leaders--that is, power for power's sake--mean that other than smoke and mirrors or at best gradual form, the solution is usually putting a bandage on the wound, not preventing the wound in the first place.

Even if and when those immediate issues are solved, the weed is only trimmed, not plucked. The root of all modern problems today is the entrenched wealth and power created by the terrifyingly successful system of capitalism, which validates its continued existence through lulling the people with a faux democracy that leaves the people strong enough to know their own immediate desires but weak from division and ignorance. Where democracy was less stable and harmonious, it failed, giving us nightmarish figures and ideologies that advocate a violent police state, racial nationalism (and cleansing of "inferior" races), and, most fundamentally, the lust for total power for the sake of total power.

Alternatively, it has led to states whose leaders, while powerful and autocratic, did have the genuine interests of all people in their hearts and minds. The first good example is of course Julius Caesar; several other enlightened despots who were emperors of Rome could also be put in this category. The French Revolution, a more recent and relavent instance of an overthrow of an entrenched, self-preserving elite, saw two of these figures. First came Robespierre, who eventually hoist himself by his petard when his attempts to unite France behind the ideals of liberty and justice spiraled into insanity and bloodshed.

Later came a favorite figure of mine, Napoleon Bonaparte. Though the French people, who had been held down under the thumb of the aristocracy for centuries, they lacked unity in the goal to better society or spread that goal to the rest of feudalist Europe. After seizing power, Napoleon became what I term a "noble autocrat". He did what was immediately necessary, unifying France behind a strong leader. But instead of solely taking advantage of that power for his own benefit or to benefit a cabal of elites, as the fascists of the 20th century did (among many other crimes), he created a concise and just code of law and funded institutions of higher learning, and in his conquests eliminated the oppressive system of feudalism from Europe altogether, with the exception of Russia.

My point in all this? Through history, the governments which have succeeded in unifying the people while retaining the values of liberty, justice, and equality have been the noble autocrats. Of course, that same leading flame of power can easily be twisted and abused, as any political ideology can. But the ideology I strive for is what I have termed cogendism, due to its intent of promoting unity, solidarity, and equality: togetherness, fundamentally.  That full explanation will come in Part 2, for as all thinkers have learned, figuring out the problem is infinitely easier than figuring out the solution.