The Temptation of Power - Part Two: Why Governments Never Stop Growing

If every government power creates opportunities for abuse, one might expect governments to exercise great restraint before assuming new responsibilities.

History suggests the opposite.

Modern governments have grown steadily in size, scope and influence. They regulate more activities than previous generations could have imagined. They collect more information, levy more taxes, administer more services and influence more aspects of daily life.

Why?

The obvious answer is that governments seek power for its own sake.

Sometimes that may be true.

More often, however, I believe government grows for a far simpler reason.

Every problem creates a demand for action.

When crime rises, people demand tougher laws.

When businesses fail, people demand financial assistance.

When housing becomes expensive, people demand regulation.

When inflation rises, people demand intervention.

When people lose their jobs, they demand support.

When healthcare struggles, they demand additional funding.

Politicians respond because doing something is almost always more popular than doing nothing.

Indeed, the politician who proposes restraint is often accused of indifference, while the politician who promises action is praised for compassion.

The incentive is obvious.

Every public problem becomes an opportunity to expand the responsibilities of the state.

Most of these expansions begin with good intentions.

Very few begin with tyranny.

Yet intentions are only the beginning of the story.

Once a new department is established, it acquires employees, managers, budgets, buildings and procedures.

Those working within the organisation naturally come to believe that their work is valuable.

They seek additional resources.

They identify new responsibilities.

They propose reforms.

The institution develops an interest in its own continuation.

This is not necessarily corruption.

It is simply human nature.

Private businesses seek new customers.

Charities seek new donors.

Government departments seek new responsibilities.

No organisation willingly argues for its own abolition.

Neither do politicians.

A minister who creates a new programme can claim credit.

A minister who quietly closes an obsolete department is more likely to attract criticism than applause.

Political rewards generally favour expansion.

Political risks often accompany reduction.

The result is predictable.

Government acquires responsibilities far more easily than it relinquishes them.

Each crisis reinforces the pattern.

Wars expand military powers.

Economic recessions expand financial intervention.

Public health emergencies expand emergency powers.

Security threats expand surveillance.

Many of these measures may be justified at the time they are introduced.

The more difficult question is whether they should continue once the emergency has passed.

History suggests that temporary powers often become permanent institutions.

That should concern every citizen, regardless of political persuasion.

The issue is not whether a particular government can be trusted.

Governments change.

The powers they inherit remain.

Every authority granted today will eventually be exercised by someone whose judgement, priorities and values differ from those who originally created it.

That is why power should always be judged by its potential for misuse, not merely by the intentions of those who first possess it.

This brings us back to the principle established in the first article.

If every government power creates opportunities for abuse, then every proposal to expand those powers should be treated with caution.

The question is never simply:

"Will this solve today's problem?"

It must also be:

"What new powers does this create, who will inherit them, and how might they one day be used?"

A free society is not preserved by assuming that good people will always govern wisely.

It is preserved by recognising that governments, like the people who compose them, are temporary.

The powers they accumulate, however, often endure.

That is why the growth of government should never be accepted as inevitable.

It should always be questioned.