Government Systems Depicted in Watership Down and the Author’s Opinion of Them

This is exclusively for those who have read Watership Down, by Richard Adams.

Of each government system depicted in Watership Down, Richard Adams favors democracy, as can be drawn from his text. Socialism and totalitarianism are also shown in the novel, each having their ultimate failures, as will be seen.
Socialism, in all, means that all are equal: all share the same property, the same food, work together in hopes of a greater good. But the advancement of actual life in a socialist government, as seen in the Warren of the Snares in Watership Down, that of the buck Cowslip, is actually very limited. Yes, each of the rabbits in the warren were happy with their lives, gorging themselves on lettuces and carrots each day, sharing stories, playing rabbit games, and the like. But their lives were not natural, something that in Adams’ opinion is necessitous to successful government development; they allowed a man to hunt elil for them, instead of fleeing or hiding; their food was grown and harvested for them, instead of being found by themselves; and all the while each knew of the impending danger – the man only wanted plump rabbits to himself consume, or perhaps stuff for hangings, or ever to take its fur; they had deviated from the natural order, and thus their government system was a failure. They lacked a leader, who would have displayed a bit of common sense; for each acting as a whole were content with their pampered life, but an elected leader, thinking for the betterment of the whole, would have to progress away from that which hindered progression – the snare; he would have kept the natural order. Thus, in Adams’ opinion, the archetypical socialist government is a joyous one, and a fair one, but not in the natural order of things, and thus, ultimately, a failure.
Efrafa is by far the most powerful of the warrens in the story. It’s got Long Patrols, organized divisions of rabbits who silflay at set times, an Owsla, of course, a council of rabbits who decide the best for each of the other rabbits in the warren, and even an Owslafa – a Council Police. All of this is headed by a rabbit called General Woundwort. While innocent to the glazed eye, this is a totalitarian government, smothered in its own power with minds perverted by it. Adams clearly does not like this system, as he displays it with the greatest amount of resentment. The rabbits who aren’t in the Owsla or council are miserable, overcrowded, starved, hidden; as if they do not exist, as if their lives are utterly nothing to all the world. The primal difficulty in this environment is the overlord himself, General Woundwort, who first lusted for power, and continued to lust for more after he had gained it. His original vision had been a warren secure from all elil, which again suggests deviation from the natural order that he has so broken, for no warren can seek absolute sanctity from natural predators. After this has been secured, however, he desires further power, more and more of it, until he becomes thoroughly engrossed with it. He feels safer in battle than fleeing, as was stated in the novel. Certainly this is not how any rabbit was meant to act? His perversion of power, and awe-inspiring vision to some, the higher in the warren, whilst being just that, bartered for this an unhappy life for the others in the warren. So while this warren had a leader, that leader was corrupt in his power, thus spoiling the rest of the warren. Adams does not like totalitarianism, from this, and is all the wiser because of it. This warren, only after adapting to become something of a democracy after the departure of Woundwort, succeeded.
The democracy of Watership Down was a success, clearly. All were happy, healthy. The warren was pleasing to the rabbits within it. It was natural. There was a single leader, chosen, more or less, from the rest – and that was Hazel. He was the archetypical “leader” character: never hasty, always one to risk his own life for the greater good, who acted for the better, was courageous, who trusted in other rabbits and animals, bringing further benefit to the warren, was himself something of a generalist, but with a sharp mind – a great tactician, who knew how to use each of his fellows to an advantage, including other animals beyond rabbits, took advice from anyone who would offer it, charging its sensibility, and more. And thus the warren prospered – because all were happy under a great leader. Now, Sandleford Warren was too a democracy, but had one principal flaw. The Threarah would not take advice from each of his rabbits, would not consider it wholly, as Fiver had predicted to him the downfall of the warren, only to be rejected. He was foolish. So, even in a democracy, favored by Adams, when the leader makes a mistake, the whole suffers; but a leader is undoubtedly a necessity. The warren was later destroyed by men.
So, conclusively, it is safe to say that when treating each distinctively in government, traits of socialism, and when balancing the power of a tyrannical government, a democracy, under strong leadership, in Richard Adams’ opinion, will surely succeed.

This is a school essay, so if you've any suggestions or find any mistakes, please e-mail Virgil (to be found on his profile page.) Many thanks.