Democracy vs Monarchy
For more than five years now, I have been thinking about the various systems of government that have been used through the ages in an attempt to make sense of it all. I guess most civilizations, at some point or the other, had a monarch to govern its people. From as far back as the early civilizations until about the middle of the seventeenth century, monarchy
was the most prevalent form of government. Notwithstanding the beliefs that the monarch was a representative of the Gods, it was for the best part, a hugely successful system of governance.
When kingdoms grew into empires, fed by the greed, avarice and savagery of monarchs , the limitations of monarchy surfaced. Kings were not as interested in popular welfare, as they were in conquests and expanding their empires and treasuries. It did not take a long time for people to realise that their kings who had given them good governance based on justice and rational principles of adminstration, were now eyeing the neighouring kingdoms more than their own kingdoms. Strong lobbies of people who found favour with the kings started to creep in with the result that the vast majorities were oppresssed, ignored and exploited. When the popular revolutions against bad governance reached their peak, we saw the birth of a new system of governance, founded on the principles of equality, liberty and justice. Democracy.
That's common knowledge. But what is often overlooked is that democracy suffers from exactly the same shortcomings that brought about the fall of monarchial regimes. We have politicians today to do what the nobles did in the past. Infact, our politicians of today put the most savage, butcherous and mercenary of the nobles to pathetic shame. Money rules the people today.The disparity between the rich and the poor during the times of prosperous monarchies as compared to the modern democratic times throws up interesting arguments against democracies.
Democracy is a system masked by fictitious liberty and elusive equality. Take a look around. Lincoln should have said that democracy intends to be a government of the people, for the people and by the people. It is not a government of the people today. It is a government of the rich and the mighty. It is not by the people as well. It is a government by savage beasts occupying positions of power without the merest knowledge of their responsibility. And no, it's not for the people, the masses. It is for the politicians whose false patriotism and partisan jingoism blind the people by their hollow promises, roughly once every five years.
Democracy thrives on the absolute lack of accountability and continuity. It is devoid of principled administration, far-sighted focus and any semblance of leadership. It is a win-or-lose game of parties with specific agendas. The biggest shortcoming of democracy is the fact that a party occupies the centre of power. Parties are machines fuelled by money and the lust for power with patently unsecular objectives as motives rather than any desire for common good or national welfare. And when you put a whole lot of these parties to govern at the federal and state levels, what you get is absolute and unadulterated anarchy. Democracy is, at best, a bad euphemism for anarchy.
It is not hard to see then that democracy is the worst suited form of government for nations with large populations. Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to India, the world's largest anarchy.
was the most prevalent form of government. Notwithstanding the beliefs that the monarch was a representative of the Gods, it was for the best part, a hugely successful system of governance.
When kingdoms grew into empires, fed by the greed, avarice and savagery of monarchs , the limitations of monarchy surfaced. Kings were not as interested in popular welfare, as they were in conquests and expanding their empires and treasuries. It did not take a long time for people to realise that their kings who had given them good governance based on justice and rational principles of adminstration, were now eyeing the neighouring kingdoms more than their own kingdoms. Strong lobbies of people who found favour with the kings started to creep in with the result that the vast majorities were oppresssed, ignored and exploited. When the popular revolutions against bad governance reached their peak, we saw the birth of a new system of governance, founded on the principles of equality, liberty and justice. Democracy.
That's common knowledge. But what is often overlooked is that democracy suffers from exactly the same shortcomings that brought about the fall of monarchial regimes. We have politicians today to do what the nobles did in the past. Infact, our politicians of today put the most savage, butcherous and mercenary of the nobles to pathetic shame. Money rules the people today.The disparity between the rich and the poor during the times of prosperous monarchies as compared to the modern democratic times throws up interesting arguments against democracies.
Democracy is a system masked by fictitious liberty and elusive equality. Take a look around. Lincoln should have said that democracy intends to be a government of the people, for the people and by the people. It is not a government of the people today. It is a government of the rich and the mighty. It is not by the people as well. It is a government by savage beasts occupying positions of power without the merest knowledge of their responsibility. And no, it's not for the people, the masses. It is for the politicians whose false patriotism and partisan jingoism blind the people by their hollow promises, roughly once every five years.
Democracy thrives on the absolute lack of accountability and continuity. It is devoid of principled administration, far-sighted focus and any semblance of leadership. It is a win-or-lose game of parties with specific agendas. The biggest shortcoming of democracy is the fact that a party occupies the centre of power. Parties are machines fuelled by money and the lust for power with patently unsecular objectives as motives rather than any desire for common good or national welfare. And when you put a whole lot of these parties to govern at the federal and state levels, what you get is absolute and unadulterated anarchy. Democracy is, at best, a bad euphemism for anarchy.
It is not hard to see then that democracy is the worst suited form of government for nations with large populations. Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to India, the world's largest anarchy.
posted by Srihari at 9:41 PM
2 Comments:
Srihari - You are onto something. The Indian civilization was sustained for over 5000 years through the instrument of a benign monarchy... which was well advised by an intellectually and spiritually disposed group of advisors. The principle that governed both the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas, was Dharma - which essentially encompasses an enduring concern for the welfare of the overall society. It is the principle and practice of Dharma which nurtured India through the millenia. Today we only have Adharmic rascals, at the seats of power. The question then becomes can democracy ever throw up a Dharmic ruler ?
I agree with you about Dharma. The Manu Smriti says:
धर्म एव हतो हन्ति
धर्मो रक्षति रक्शितः
Those who destroy Dharma are destroyed by Dharma; those who protect Dharma are in turn protected by Dharma.
It's absolutely true. For several millenia Dharma sustained India's glorious civilization, but when Dharma was not upheld, the power and the glory fell prey to invaders.
Today's democracy institutionalizes the worst aspects of Adharma. A Dharmic leader could well become a President or a Prime Minister, but such a rule will still only be a patchwork of Dharma on the bleeding wounds of Adharma. Eventually, the infection has to be purged, and then again, Dharma will return. Dharma cannot come from a party, it has to come from a wise soul.
It was surprising to read a comment on this post, which I wrote nearly 6 years ago. How did you find it? Wondering who you are and how are you associated with FACT India?
Post a Comment
<< Home