Inflexible central government

Demosclerosis
Progressive loss of government ability to adapt
Democratic government paralysis

Nature

The more complicated government becomes, the less flexible and creative it is in relation to the demand placed upon it by changing needs. As societies grow in size and complexity, central governments themselves grow more complex in the attempt to deal with the ambiguities in these societies.

Background

The problem of inflexible central government gained global prominence in the 20th century, as decolonization and democratization movements exposed the limitations of rigid, centralized authority. Scholars and policymakers increasingly recognized that such inflexibility often stifled local innovation and exacerbated regional disparities. Landmark events, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and persistent governance challenges in post-colonial states, further highlighted the need for adaptable, responsive governance structures to address diverse and evolving societal needs.

Incidence

Inflexible central governments have been implicated in stifling local innovation, exacerbating regional inequalities, and impeding timely responses to crises. This rigidity is evident in numerous countries where centralized authority resists decentralization, often leading to widespread dissatisfaction and unrest. The problem is particularly acute in large, diverse nations where uniform policies fail to address local needs, resulting in inefficiencies and social tensions that can escalate into significant national challenges.
A notable example occurred in Myanmar in 2021, when the military-led central government’s refusal to accommodate regional autonomy demands contributed to mass protests and violent crackdowns, highlighting the dangers of inflexible governance in a multi-ethnic society.

Claim

Stable societies, like the USA and the UK, which are spared the trauma of military defeat or social upheaval, almost inevitably tend to become barnacled with interest groups whose goals are to claim a larger share of the pie for themselves and their members. As they assert their claims, they impede the society's ability to make needed policy changes and economic shifts, so that growth slows and government becomes ever less responsive. By contrast, countries like Germany and Japan, which have had turbulent histories, are less encumbered by interest groups, and therefore see their economies grow faster, their politics adapt more swiftly to change. Because the interest-group network will not allow failed or outdated policies and programmes to die, there is neither the money nor the will to try new approaches.

Counter-claim

The notion that an inflexible central government is a major problem is vastly overstated. In reality, consistency and stability are essential for effective governance. Flexibility often leads to indecision and chaos, undermining national unity. A strong, steady central authority ensures clear direction and equal treatment for all citizens. The supposed dangers of inflexibility are exaggerated; what truly matters is reliable leadership, not constant change or endless compromise.