Training children for living is important for several reasons. These reasons include, to develop in them good and regular habits of behaviour that: contribute to their personal wellness and circumstances, are socially graceful, and are morally just toward others and themselves.
There is also the well known need to train children and assist them in developing such habits of behaviour because their level of immaturity requires that they be correctly guided by others.
(In this essay the parent, guardian and child care-giver are seen as knowing what they intend to pass on, by way of instruction and example, to their children. They are seen also as understanding the relationship between indifference to training children, and, training children in the right way, and the consequences of these two approaches.)
The level of immaturity in children, and their need to be guided by others, fortunately, are not disadvantages. There is always a corresponding willingness and ability in most children to learn from and be guided by adults.
Early childhood is known to be the best years for development of good, as well as bad, regular habits of behaviour. Generally, bad habits of behaviour form where good habits of behaviour are not developed. It is well known what can happen when such bad habits of behaviour are left unchecked during early childhood.
In children, developing correct habits is more immediately important and more likely to be achieved than is understanding the concepts and principles behind the correct habits.
Understanding the concepts and principles behind the correct habits becomes easier as children develop toward adulthood. By late adolescence to early adulthood, these underlying concepts and principles should be understood, and the relationship between good habits of behaviour and these underlying concepts and principles should be seen.
At this stage, the connection between: right action and wrong action on one hand, and their consequences to us and others on the other hand, should also be clearly understood.
Training children draws on several areas of knowledge and practice and is concerned with correctly influencing and shaping the thinking and action of young innocent persons.
Occasionally action has to be taken to prevent undesirable thought and action from becoming firmly rooted in the minds, behaviour and character of some children.
Discipline, simple and appropriate, is used to assist in implanting correct thought and behaviour in place of undesirable thought and behaviour.
Early childhood training and development of good regular habits of behaviour contribute to the building of character and affect how we relate to ourselves, to others as individuals and members of social groups, to institutions of the sovereign state in which we live, and to God.
Parents, guardians and others who are responsible for nurturing children will determine whether or not they participate in the training of those children. They will determine also, if they decide to train those children, what methods of instruction and action they use in their attempt to successfully train those children. It is understood that parental refusal to train children is parental choosing to train them in the wrong way and toward the wrong outcome by default.
There are occasions when politicians from both parties in a two party system should stand up together for a common cause. One such occasion when this bipartisan approach was necessary was following the striking down of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013 by the Supreme Court of the United Sates (SCOTUS).
(Section 3 of DOMA is known to relate to such topics as (for federal purposes) government employees insurance benefits, social security survivors’ benefits, bankruptcy, immigration, filing of joint tax returns, scope of laws protecting (heterosexual only) families of federal officers, financial aid eligibility laws, and federal ethics laws applying to heterosexual spouses.)
It is obvious why those seeking to redefine marriage and the family would want to have SCOTUS strike down this section of DOMA.
This bipartisanship was very evident in May 1996 when The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed Congress and the Senate by large majorities. This bipartisanship thus contributed to the DOMA being signed into law in September, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.
DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also defines “spouse” as a partner in a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.
Four out of the nine SCOTUS judges voted in favour of upholding Section 3 of the DOMA. Their position is very noteworthy since clearly, the other five judges misinterpreted part or all of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
All congressmen, senators, governors and mayors, of both parties, who were in favour of upholding the DOMA should have highlighted, locally and nationally, the position of the SCOTUS judges who voted for upholding the DOMA. They then should have considered using the vote of the four SCOTUS judges who also favoured upholding the DOMA, as the rallying cry for their upholding it in practice. This would not only be a case of the ultimate bipartisanship, it would also be a valid case of the end justifying the means.
The state of mental health of our politicians, statesmen and other public figures is very important. The need for an optimal standard of mental health among our national leaders can not be over emphasized. This is so given the nature of the decisions they are required to make, and given the nature and extent of the tasks they are required to perform.
This relatively small group of people who run our countries have much of our fate in their hands. In a certain country, the president, about 435 congressmen and about 100 senators together decide the fate of the populace.
The populace of this country exceeds three hundred and twenty million people; and the land area of this country is more than three million square miles. This shows the power and responsibility of our political leaders, and the importance of their being of sound mind.
It used to be the case, since the end of the second World War, that mentally unstable politicians, statesmen and other public figures holding office were mainly to be found in the third world.
Even in the third world, mentally unstable politicians were only expected to hold the reins of power following a military or other coup d’état, or a popular uprising.
Second world countries, perhaps, might be expected to produce the occasional unstable political leader (the former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, is a good example of this point). Such a despotic leader could never be expected to come from a first world country in the post World War 2 era.
The world thought that it had seen the last of the first world’s mentally unstable politicians, following the demise of Hitler, Mussolini, General Francisco Franco, Stalin and General Hideki Tojo. Leaders of a similar mental state to these were not supposed to hold political office ever again in the first world.
First world countries have been vigilant since 1945 in keeping persons of unstable mind out of high political office. The good reputation earned by the first world countries for civilized behaviour in high political office and other areas of public life, since the end of the second World War, has so far been cherished and well protected.
This situation, however, might be changing soon. There is now a person who seems to be of a very unstable mind seeking election to the highest political office in a prominent first world country. This person is their party’s nominee for the country’s highest political office in the upcoming general election.
This person’s speech and behaviour remind us of the speech and behaviour of the Axis powers leaders during the nineteen thirties and nineteen forties. This person speaks and behaves like a despot, and ignores rules and conventions in their quest for power. This person shows no regard for others, relative to the consequences of this person’s speech and actions.
This person is considered by some medical experts to be mentally unbalanced. Dr. Drew Pinsky, Physician and radio talk show host, told CNN’s Don Lemon that this person seemed to be suffering from multiple mental illnesses.
Maria Konnikova, New Yorker science and psychology writer, writing on the website Big Think, suggested that this person might be suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, NPD.
One expert, Dr. Robert Geffner, President of San Diego’s Institution on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, says there are three aberrant disorders psychologists look for: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or NPD; impulse control disorder; and anti-social personality disorders. Dr. Geffner says that the presence of these disorders along with bullying, existing in the same person, is a “dangerous and frightening combination”.
What happens if this person is elected to their country’s highest political office? What domestic and foreign policy principles and practices will this person pursue after the general election if they are successful at the poll?
Mentally unstable persons and persons who are, otherwise not mentally well, should not be allowed to contest elections for any level of political office. All applicants to such elections should be required to undergo medical tests to verify their mental health status. Periodic mandatory checks to determine the state of mental health of prospective and actual political leaders should be a necessary requirement during their stay in office. Such checks and testing should be easy to implement. Strict psychological examination of suitable applicants to the Secret Service is standard procedure. This psychological examination can be used as an initial example module for the psychological examinations of our political leaders. The list of persons to be routinely checked should include, the president, the vice president, congressmen, senators, governors and mayors.
There is a distinct difference between the two terms nation and state; but to some of us, that difference seems unclear. A nation can be defined as, “a large aggregate of people united by common decent, history, culture and language”. A state can be defined as, “a territory considered as an organized political community under one government”.
“Nation” refers to People, those of the same ethnicity whose size is large enough to allow them to be deemed a nation as defined above. “State” refers to Territory, Government and its Institutions, the territory and Government of a nation or nations. Government institutions are those arms of government which implement government policy, directly or indirectly, in part or whole, for the benefit of the people and the state.
The state may or may not be a partial or full provider of welfare assistance to people. It must, however, be the provider of services in such areas as: the judiciary, law and order, national security, piped drinking water, ports of entry, education and the political economy. These and several other areas are vital to the perpetuity of a nation and state.
It is through the state that the most noble ideals and aspirations of a nation are realized. It is through the state too, that the practical and common good is realized. It is also through the state that a nation sometimes realizes the lowest depths of failure, degradation and disgrace. We remember Hitler’s Third Rich.
A nation can exist without a state. A nation does not have to be settled and have a physical homeland to be a nation. A nomadic people who meet the criteria of a nation above is a nation.
The Biblical nation of Israel, before its exodus from Egypt, was not settled in a homeland of its own but it still was a nation. They were slaves in the land of their masters but still saw themselves, and were treated by others, as another nation.
They did not have statehood. They demanded of Pharaoh to let them go, and he did. They then journeyed to their homeland and created a homogeneous state. A state needs at least one nation for its existence.
A colonized people who meet the criteria of a nation and live in their own settled homeland is a nation without statehood. Colonization does not destroy the nationhood of a people; and independence does not confer nationhood upon a people. Colonization and independence are related to statehood, they are not related to nationhood.
A state can be comprised of one nation or it can be comprised of more than one nation. A nation-state or homogeneous state is a state comprising of only one nation. A multinational-state is a state comprising of two or more nations.
Poland is a good example of a single-nation or homogeneous state (about 98% of its population are ethnic Polish). Belgium is an example of a multinational-state. Its northern region is home to ethnic Dutch people (54%); and its southern region is home to ethnic French people (36%). The US also is an example of a multinational state.
A nation is a mass of people who share the same ethnic connections and gene pool. A state is a land area and its functioning government and political machinery, and the body of laws by which it governs.
Forgiving others involves our showing them unconditional mercy and refusing to hold against them, the wrong they have done to us. Such wrongdoing against us can be accidental or deliberate. We refuse to seek revenge against them but may ask them to correct a course of action to restore a state of just behaviour toward us.
We may, for example, (especially if the wrongdoing was deliberate) ask them to return property they have taken from us or ask them to compensate us for that property. We may also ask them to promise that they will not commit such wrongdoing against us in the future.
Forgiveness is not a reserve of religion. Its principle can be embraced and it can be practised by everyone including theists, atheists, skeptics and agnostics. It also is not peculiar to a particular people or culture.
The underlying principle of forgiveness is good and worthwhile in itself; and it is universal and timeless. When we practise forgiveness we further develop it as a quality thereby contributing to the development of true character.
The practice of forgiveness is related to and may involve the practice of such other qualities as sympathy, empathy, forbearance and so on. The practice of these qualities also contribute to the development of our character.
The practice of forgiveness and the attendant development of our character can be of benefit to both the forgiver and the forgiven. Such ability to forgive and the corresponding enhancement of character can also benefit all of our relationships. The practice of forgiveness can also benefit the social units to which we belong and the wider community in which we live. At the community level, physical violence, crime and incarceration and the economic cost of these areas of activity are but a few of the areas that can benefit from the practice of forgiveness as it is viewed above.
Rita, Musa and Monica discuss the subject of “Giving Personal Support” while they wait in a long queue of vehicles at a service station. They would rather not be in this queue at all but are patient and understand the importance of people getting their hurricane supplies.
A hurricane is expected to reach land within the next two days. The prospect of a hurricane reaching land within such a short period always results in a rush to get extra hurricane supplies, including petrol and diesel for generators.
“I am concerned for the welfare of the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women, the mentally ill, the incurably ill, those who are confined to bed because of illness, babies and very small children.”, Monica says.
She continues, “These groups are the most vulnerable among us during disasters such as hurricanes so they need our support more so than others during such disasters.””Our support can also be helpful to them when life returns to normal in the community following a natural disaster.”, Rita adds.
“The kind of support that we can give as individuals in our community especially to the elderly and disabled can be very helpful now.”, Rita says. “This is so because some of these people are being neglected or have been abandoned altogether by relatives.”, she continues.
“The healthcare and social services collectively provide modern professional health care and related support.”, Monica says.
“The collective support of these services should be complemented at home by the support of individual family members.”, Rita adds. “Where such individual support is not available in the homes of our elderly and disabled, it can be provided by volunteers within the community.”, she continues.
“Our giving personal support to the elderly and disabled under normal conditions in our community is quite simple.”, Musa says.
He gives a few simple guidelines to follow,”Care about the people we are supporting; be honest with them at all times; become friendly with them and get to know them well if they are not so well known to us; support the number of persons that we can practicably support; keep a list of the persons we are supporting in our community; and carefully record the necessary information about the persons we are supporting such as the illnesses from which they suffer, the clinics they attend, the foods they must avoid and so on.
Personal support we can give to the elderly and disabled within our community includes: ensuring their safety and wellness by daily visiting them in their homes; returning their phone calls; talking and listening to them; ensuring that they take meals, take their medication, keep appointments, meet basic commitments like bill payments, and access available and needed services; minimizing their transportation difficulties; and performing chores and errands for them.”
“Other points of assistance can be added to the ones identified here but these few are sufficient for us to start giving personal support to those who need it.”, Musa concludes.
Why do we stigmatize mental illness and then in an attempt to avoid stigmatizing our relatives and friends who are suffering from mental illness, deny that they are suffering from such illness?
The answer to this question may be obvious, but would it not be better to stop stigmatizing mental illness? Would we not then be able to admit that our relatives and friends are suffering from mental illness without having to worry about the stigma of mental illness?
We do not stigmatize diabetes, cancer, heart disease or high blood pressure. We thus do not see any need to deny that our relatives and friends suffer from these diseases. Mental illness is another disease like any other; it does not have to be stigmatized.
Should we stop stigmatizing mental illness, this would allow us to seek professional help for our mentally ill relatives and friends at the earliest opportunity. (There would be no stigma to prevent us from admitting the presence of the disease in the early stage.) This early help could be sought without our experiencing a sense of shame due to the absence of any associated stigma. This early help should also allow the mentally ill the earliest and best chance of either recovering from their illness, or otherwise learning to live with the reality of the permanence of that illness.
David and Douglas sit peacefully on Douglas’ patio. It is a quiet Saturday afternoon and the weather is fine; both men are off from work and relaxing while chatting in their usual friendly manner. Both men like thoughtful conversation and several topics are discussed by them this afternoon. During their conversation, Douglas raises a topic from a former conversation which is of particular interest to him, “Naming People”. David and Douglas are discussing this topic.
“Why are we given names?”, ask Douglas, as David is about to place the magazine through which he is browsing on the table before him. “I think we are given names so that we can be identified from among others.”, David answers. “In a world of only two persons neither one of them would need a name as there would be no chance of a mistaken identity.”, David remarks with a smile.
“Are there any other reasons for which names are sometimes given?”, asks Douglas with a rather innocent look on his face. David answers after a short pause, “Yes, two such reasons come to mind.” David continues by saying that “The first reason has to do with an attempt to indicate one or more peculiarities of the bearer of the name.” David then says, “The second reason has to do with an attempt to stigmatize the bearer of the name (individually and or collectively) by giving them a name that is by nature derogatory and belittling.”
“Let us look at the first of these two other reasons for which names are sometimes given.”, David suggests. Douglas agrees, and David continues by saying “This is not so much of another reason for giving a name to a baby but rather an attempt to give the baby a name which, not only identifies him but more specifically tells us something about one or more of his peculiarities.” David continues to say that, “In some cultures, names are selected for babies based on the meaning of the name and its relevance to some physical or other trait of the baby or an aspect of the baby’s life or circumstances.”
David continues by reminding, “Remember that the following list of categories of baby names that is mentioned here and used in some cultures is not exhaustive.” David then states, “Some of the categories under which baby names are selected for a more specific indication of any of the baby’s personal or circumstantial traits are: body, birth, family background, circumstances, geography and the hopes and fears of the parents.” David continues, “Here also are some examples of names, with their meaning given after them, that are chosen for the relevance of their meaning to personal or circumstantial traits of the baby: Ham (black) Augustus (born in August) Moses (drawn from the water) Omar (first born) Muhammad (most praised one).”
“Now let us look at the second of these two other reasons for which names are sometimes given.”, David remarks. He takes a sip of a glass of orange juice which he is served by Douglas. Douglas clears his throat and nods in agreement. David continues by saying, “This second reason for giving a name is not like the first reason in that it can sometimes be a bad reason. The reasons for giving names in this case are often to derogate and belittle the bearer of the name. Such derogatory and belittling names are given to groups and individuals in order to stigmatize them.”
David continues by saying that, “Names only identify a person, they do not shape or mold him. They do not determine how or what a person is; and they do not determine the choices a person makes or the outcome of those choices.” Pausing for a sip of orange juice, David then continues, “Derogatory names are no exception to this rule even though they sometimes succeed in stigmatizing the bearer of them.”
Douglas shakes his head in agreement and softly taps the top of the table with his right index finger, before he says, “I could not agree with you more.” Douglas then pauses shortly before continuing to say, “Names do not make us, character does. Stigmatization gradually disappears when character appears. Stigmatized persons only need to show true character.” Douglas continues, “Where character has lapsed it must be revived. Where it never existed, it must be developed. Some of the basic areas of activity for practice of characterful development are: willingness to live with others harmoniously, honesty, truthfulness, forgiveness, empathy and general outgoing care and concern for others.” Douglas continues by saying, ” Setting worthwhile goals to be pursued is the next step that should be taken by the stigmatized person. It should also be noted that when persons of character work hard toward achieving lofty goals, they almost always achieve such goals.”
Douglas pauses briefly after speaking, then gets up and clears the table of the remaining orange juice and the drinking glasses which were used earlier by both men; he takes them into the kitchen. In Douglas’ absence, David gets up and walks slowly toward the rear outer edge of the patio and surveys the surrounding area and the sky. Returning to the table on Douglas’ return from the kitchen, David says, “It is almost dusk. I shall stay for the evening news then I shall be going.” The evening news begins at seven o’ clock. After a short period of silence, both men join Douglas’ beautiful wife in the living room where she is sitting while awaiting the start of the evening news. The evening news ends an hour later and David departs for home after thanking Douglas for a good conversation and his friendly presence; and after thanking Douglas’ wife for welcoming him as their guest.
Every once in awhile I become involved in a conversation with friends or relatives about the behaviour (usually of a habitual and undesirable kind) of a child or adolescent about whom we care and the question always arises as to who or what is the cause of that behaviour.
My friends and relatives almost always hold the view that the blame is to be placed solely on the shoulders of someone else (for example, the influence from others, peer pressure) or something else (for example, the lack of money or other physical possession). I almost always hold the view that their position is a mistaken one.
Are people born with any tendencies or potential to develop any tendencies that will later result in or influence the nature of their actions, preferences, likes, dislikes and so on as they develop and mature toward adulthood; or are they born as a blank slate, without any such tendencies or potential to develop any such tendencies?
The answer to the first part of that question seems to be yes, the answer to the second part seems therefore to be no. Such tendencies, actual or potential and so on are sometimes visibly seen displayed in the behaviour of some very small children and even babies.
As they grow older and mature toward adulthood, such behaviour in those very small children and babies not only remains consistent throughout their development but also becomes more and more pronounced as time passes.
Since that is the case, we can also safely say that in order for something to develop and mature, that-something must first exist, if only as a seed from which the final result will develop.
Here are two good examples that seem to show the correctness of the answers given to the double question that is asked above. This is the first example: the very first time I heard classical music (I was a very small child who was at the stage of development that allowed him to be able to appreciate music.) I liked it.
It was heard from a neighbour’s radio. Prior to, and at that moment I had never seen anyone anywhere listening to or showing any kind of appreciation for classical music. (I actually grew up in a home that did not have a radio, television or any other type of audio-visual equipment for the first eighteen years of my life.
That experience, by the way, was without any regret as I had access to a world of great books.) My love for classical music became deeper and more sophisticated with time as I matured and grew older.
The second example is: I started sucking my right index finger and the one next to it at birth (They probably were being sucked even before birth.) and continued to suck them until age eleven. There could not have been any ‘external influence’ acting on and influencing me to start and continue sucking my fingers in this case.
There also is the question of choice. We are free to choose between following our natural born-with tendencies that incline our behaviour toward a certain direction, and following other courses of action (either internally or ‘externally’ motivated) temporarily or permanently.
(Here is an example of this point: when I stop sucking my index and other fingers after doing so for eleven years as mentioned above, I resisted a born-with tendency and practice for their opposite course of action. That opposite course of action was internally motivated, I decided finger-sucking was not the best practice to keep, and that opposite course of action, giving up finger-sucking, was also permanent.)
Given what has been said above, it therefore seems truthful to say that we are not born as blank slates but with tendencies that influence and shape our behaviour even though we can resist these tendencies and act contrary to them if we so desire.
The problems experienced by African-descended people cannot all be attributed to their enslavement by others; those problems also can not be blamed totally on any racial discrimination that continued after the abolition of slavery.
It is clear that the choices made by Africans in the various areas of national development, from the beginning and continuing through time, did not serve their national development interests. The choices they made contributed to their becoming seriously disadvantaged in all areas of national development, including social, economic, political, military and other forms of development. (Two examples of the point made above is that, during and after the Bronze and Iron Ages and well after the industrial revolution, Africans continued to fight with wooden weapons. Africans also never established and maintained clearly defined, tribal/national borders.) Later, the failure of Africans to achieve a significant level of development in those areas mentioned above not only placed them at a disadvantage but was successfully exploited by others in their quest to enslave and colonize Africans.
In order to achieve an appropriate level of development in the important areas of life that meets the needs of African people (on the African continent and elsewhere) African people firstly must admit that they still contribute to their current plight by continuing to think and behave in relation to national development as they did prior to their enslavement and colonization. (An example of this point is the non-existence, both before slavery and after its abolition, of: long-term economic and other planning, an infrastructure for economic and other development including complex systems for, tribal/national financial accounting, large scale agricultural production, extensive land and sea communications, inter-tribal/national commerce and trade, and tax revenue generation, to name a few.)
African people secondly must create a body of experts for the long term planning of all aspects of development and create an infrastructure for the implementation of the long term development plans of that body. They also need to realize that because of the non-existence of fundamental and long-term developmental planning and an infrastructure for economic and other development as mentioned above, the changes made and the progress achieved since abolition, colonization and independence are always going to be superficial, fragile and of a relatively short-term duration.
It is necessary too, that Africans identify the changes in their thinking and behaviour they are required to make at the personal level (both individually and collectively) that will contribute to their personal development and achievement. They must understand the close interconnection between and interdependence of personal development and achievement and the common good; they must therefore personally commit to the common good. This personal commitment to the common good must include understanding the importance of, and practical commitment to moral values (especially the value of honesty, which is necessary for the reduction of certain crimes and the elimination of corruption). Without upholding these moral values in practice, there can be no real development, national or personal.
The history of the African people prior to their enslavement took the unfortunate turn that it did and continued along that path because Africans failed (for whatever reasons) to follow certain courses of action, to create certain institutions and to adopt certain corrective measures, of which some are mentioned below:
A strong sense of identity of ethnicity and race: Ethnic groups (nations) never took themselves seriously as nations and, consequently, as preservers and defenders of their race.
Strong, ethnocentric political ruler-ship, sense of absoluteness (sense of relationship of rulers and people to God); know importance of role in, and purpose of, leadership; development or borrowing of efficient and effective political, military, legal and economic systems: they fell very short in these areas but could have borrowed ideas and practices from others, as other races have done. (Example, Africans fought with wooden weapons far too long, up to, during and after the colonial period.)
Identification and preservation of ethnic legacy, heritage, culture, history, language (Realize importance of creating or borrowing alphabet, grammar, literary tradition) They failed miserably in these areas also, but again, could have borrowed from the other races. (Example, Africans did not create or borrow any alphabet or grammar, their languages did not develop and they remained non literate.)
A Permanent commitment to establishment and preservation of tribal/national homelands (realize importance of patriotism, nationalism) they failed here totally, too, but could have adopted the better approach of other peoples. (Example, Africans failed to establish and maintain clearly defined tribal/national borders.)
It is hopeful, but not expected in several generations to come, that Africans on the continent and in the diaspora will make the changes suggested above and below for the alleviation of many of the problems from which they are suffering.
The democratic political system with its various institutions and checks and balances for the prevention of abuse, corruption etc, though not faultless, is second to none; and its accompanying capitalist economic system, though not faultless likewise, is also second to none. The principal and outstanding feature of this twin system is the freedoms it affords the societies who adopt it and those freedoms include freedom to choose which development goals to pursue, and freedom to determine how and when to pursue those development goals. This democratic-capitalist system then, would seem to be the ideal system for African societies.
That salient feature of the democratic-capitalist system, freedom to choose (in politics, in the economy and in other areas of societal life, within the law) is the very reason why the democratic-capitalist system is not the ideal system for development in African societies. African societies, when left free to choose between development and underdevelopment always choose the latter, some evidence is given above to support this position.
What then is the solution to the problems of African tribes/nations’ persistent underdevelopment and their constant refusal to freely work toward achieving development? The solution is one that has never been tried before, and one that will never be tried at anytime soon by any African tribe/nation. The solution is a two sided system comprising of a political dictatorship and a non-political, central, economic and social planning body. A sensible, efficient and effective political dictatorship will manage only the political affairs of the tribe/nation; and an independent, non-political, central planning body of experts will formulate economic and social policy; the economic and social policy will then be implemented by the various parts of a well developed and extensive economic and social infrastructure as planned.
(The standard used by this writer throughout this observation to measure the performance within various areas of activity of the African tribes/nations is met by Biblical Israel and Historical Germany.)