The Temptation of Power – Part 6: The New Dependence

Every society must decide how it cares for those who cannot care for themselves.

Children.

The elderly.

The disabled.

Those temporarily out of work.

Those facing genuine hardship.

No civilised society can ignore human suffering.

The real question is not whether help should be given.

It is who should provide it.

For most of history, responsibility rested primarily with families, neighbours, religious organisations and voluntary charities.

Government certainly existed, but it was rarely expected to become the principal source of support for everyday life.

Over the past century that expectation has changed dramatically.

Today, many people naturally turn first to government when confronted by difficulty.

Healthcare.

Education.

Housing.

Income support.

Pensions.

Childcare.

Social care.

Employment assistance.

The list continues to grow.

Some of these developments have undoubtedly improved lives.

Many people have received assistance they desperately needed.

Medical treatment has become more widely available.

Poverty has been reduced in many circumstances.

Opportunities have expanded.

These achievements should not be dismissed.

Yet every benefit carries consequences beyond its immediate purpose.

When responsibility moves from households and communities to government, the relationship between citizen and state inevitably changes.

Government is no longer simply the institution that enforces the law.

It becomes the institution upon which increasing numbers of people depend for significant parts of their daily lives.

Dependence is not merely financial.

It is psychological.

If government educates your children, provides your healthcare, supports your income, houses your family and cares for your relatives, it gradually becomes central to your sense of security.

That is an enormous responsibility.

It is also an enormous concentration of power.

This dependence affects governments as much as citizens.

Politicians increasingly campaign on promises to expand services.

Public debate shifts away from asking whether government should act and towards asking how much more it should do.

Every election becomes, at least in part, a competition to demonstrate who can offer the greatest reassurance.

Again, this is not necessarily the result of bad intentions.

Most people genuinely wish to help others.

Most politicians sincerely believe their proposals will improve society.

The issue is not motive.

It is structure.

When one institution becomes responsible for ever more aspects of life, alternatives naturally become weaker.

Families assume fewer responsibilities because government has accepted them.

Communities organise less because professional services exist.

Voluntary associations find themselves replaced by statutory agencies.

The more effective government becomes at solving problems, the less opportunity other institutions have to develop the habits of responsibility that once sustained them.

This creates a subtle cycle.

Government expands because society asks it to.

Society asks more because government has expanded.

Each reinforces the other.

Breaking that cycle becomes increasingly difficult.

To question further expansion is often portrayed as hostility towards those in need.

That is a misunderstanding.

The real question is not whether compassion matters.

It is whether compassion is strongest when exercised personally, voluntarily and locally, or when delivered primarily through increasingly centralised institutions.

Reasonable people will answer that question differently.

My concern is not with compassion itself.

It is with dependence.

A free society requires citizens who are capable of solving as many problems as possible without appealing to central authority.

Not because government has no role.

It clearly does.

But because every responsibility assumed by government is also a responsibility no longer exercised elsewhere.

The greatest strength of any society lies not in the size of its government, but in the strength of the institutions that stand alongside it.

For when citizens become dependent upon a single institution for too much of life, that institution acquires an influence over society far greater than its founders may ever have intended.

And wherever influence becomes concentrated, power inevitably follows.