Social investments in the world

Many people, many thoughts. Some thoughts are acted upon and some receive those or react to them.

Many situations may arise, governed in part with the above.

There are tight spots in the world population due to circumstances being responded to by various thinkers.

At times there are variegated responses. Some of those are deliberately narrowed so there may be just two prevailing approaches. This usually tends to polarize approaches to resolution. Other approaches may be undermined, or converted, or suppressed despite their validity. Just as in the Cold War, etc., the globe was largely divided into two ideological camps of communism and democracy bodies, which imposed the affliction on over 150 sovereign nations.

The polarization has happened before and it may be allowed again, and seems to be again involving the same two camps. Not much evidence of progress since the Cold War toward resolutions of world concerns which are older than the Cold War. Endeavors are channeled or dictated by their social orientations and affiliations, rather than developing totally independently by self determination.

Many of those who acquire the upper powers tend to organize their own administrations despite what the populace indicates. They circumvent responsibility and transparency with appointed, not elected, cabinets, councils, proteges, teams and other administrative posts which may be immune to laws of the land. They may promote an elitist pattern. They mete out the programs, authoritarian and/or exclusionary allowing for little recourse or redress for the populace. They tend to layer or insulate themselves or commandeer consensus This seems to be the way the power is secured  and built almost unchecked, it usually favors the programs of those who hold it. Those in inner circles act to sustain and enforce their programs.

Some call these new systems "authoritarian modernity", or "illiberal democracy"  which may include a constitution which favors the national or dominating governing body. Or one which allows control of the consensus decision making, e.g. top down.

These may tend to turn into monoliths of very focused governing. There may  be effective ways to dilute these concentrations of power. Part of it will involve stated, enforceable transparency access to workings of immune agencies. Such a body would have to be totally independent of issue and parties involved including sponsorship, central funding and budget unabridged and personnel. The members would, of course, need to be trained and have awareness or sensitivity training on the issue involved. The reports, recommendations, etc. will be their own record as well as sharing with pertinent parties. Their reports will readily be made accessible and/or are published periodically. To countervail against pubication will be considered obstruction at any level germane by the party involved.

Emphasis here may change from direct probes of the agency or person in question and face obstinance but rather it may focus and monitor more on the ways it is supported and thereby trace toward what end resources, projects and programs are being applied which may reveal what objective is being pursued.

It seems to go astray of focus when there are comparisons of revenue and capital of systems. It need not use revenue as a way to measure the success of a system. Revenue, although traceable, is not always an accurate gauge of concentration of activity.

It is not whether there is a social structure in place but the new world order operates on how it is utilized or exploited, regardless.