Thoughts on Governance
I will be posting the papers I write for Champlain courses. I am required to maintain the “academic standards” and thus my language in these kind of posts might be dry and boring. But I have really done research for these. So take them seriously.
“Plato has segregated the citizens of the Republic into 3 rigid groups. Do you think this hierarchical society can be successful if it came into existence? Evaluate the drawbacks and the benefits of such a government. Which type of government do you think would ensure contentment and happiness to all strata of society — Democracy? Monarchy? Communism? State your views explicitly.”
Plato divided his kallipolis into three classes – namely the producers, the guardians and the rulers. Plato was adamant not to provide any social mobility in his kallipolis. When interrupted by Adeimantus that the most powerful people in his city were to lead an almost ascetic lifestyle, and the manual laborers were allowed more freedom to carve out their own social habits, Plato hit out by saying that his aim was to make the whole city happy, not just one section of the population. If just one section were bestowed too much freedom and wealth, it would create discontent among the rest, and spite among the rich.
Plato was of the opinion that if we make something so beautiful that it doesn’t seem what it was supposed to seem, then it is a lost effort. If the farmers and craftsmen lolled around in heaps of gold, Plato said, and ignored their craft, then that wouldn’t harm the city much. However, if the guardians themselves regaled and celebrated, then the city would be open to attack – from the neighboring cities from the outside, and the brewing discontent from the inside. They wouldn’t remain ‘just’ rulers. Plato said that the teachers of the guardians will persuade them and condition them in such a way that the guardians would willingly set aside material wealth and embrace their duty with their body and soul.
Such a situation is portrayed beautifully in Peter Jackson’s movie – ‘The Lord of the Rings’ – the movie about the mythological Middle Earth. While the citizens rejoice after defeating the enemy in a major battle, the rulers still continue to anticipate the Dark Lord’s last attempt to vanquish the Humans. A similar scene was shown in ‘Titanic’; the passengers aboard continue their drinks and dance – while the ships officers fight for time for the sinking ship.
Plato further says that the profession of a son must the same as that of his father. The bloodline of the guardians must be preserved. Only the descendants of a king shall be the rulers, only the descendants of the courtiers shall enjoy the nobility and the sons of farmers would continue toiling in the sun. This would enrage any twenty-first century libertarian human rights activist. Such restricted social mobility is often frowned upon in our times. We all want to go to America, where anyone can become rich – where anyone and everyone can build up a fortune based upon his own talent, ability and resourcefulness. For those who do not think internationally (or are patriotic), Mumbai is their City of Dreams. A place where a suburban boy could become big in Bollywood, where an illiterate young man could build a business empire. This is dream is shown perfectly in the movie Bunty Aur Babli, where the highly ambitious Bunty wants to leave his sleepy town of Fursatganj and come to Bambai, because this is the city which rewarded the Tatas, the Birlas and the Ambanis. Plato would certainly not have approved of Mumbai, New York and London.
Ok, now let us consider the above three cities. Mumbai is the nerve centre of the world’s largest democracy. New York is supposed to be the world’s financial capital, while London is the last remaining civilized place in the world. Mumbai is housed in a democracy; NY is under the federal government while London used to be under a monarchy. The reason these cities are the nerve centers is that these cities absorbed everybody. These cities are pursued by the ambitious because these are the places where one can smell, taste and touch success. To live (or exist) in such shimmering places is regarded by many as their only goal in life. Why? Because it allows mobility. Never will a young person will dream of making a career in Beijing or Sao Paolo or South Africa or the Middle East. Unless that career is in drugs or guns. The public in these places is never allowed to live free. To make a fortune in such cities will require extremely powerful connections in the right places. No one from a middle class background would want to go there. The cities which boast of a track record of rising billionaires will attract more aspiring billionaires. The cities which are doused in blood and gun powder will attract the scavengers.
This sets the record of classifying the citizens straight. If a city may follow Plato’s blueprint of the kallipolis may find itself embroiled in constant revolts. The peasants, after having tasted wealth, would want more, and rob the merchants. The merchants, having gained money, would now want power. The guardians, if all too powerful, may impose tyrannical rule over the city. While it is possible to condition and program the minds of the guardians to stay away from all vices, the chain of the bloodline rulers will always have a weak link. Once the barter system was done away with, and currency was recognized as value, everyone would want to have a piece larger than one gets.
The British monarchy understood this long before. Having faced a couple of revolts, the rulers came to realize that sharing the power with the citizens will quell the uprisings. This gave rise to the representational form of government, which is now being used almost globally. The citizens were satisfied. The rulers were allowed the right to the Title. And the armed forces were controlled by the representatives of the masses. The monarchy was transformed into a democracy. Everything seemed to be rosy. Or so it seemed.
The scenes behind the curtains hid the maneuvers of the rulers. Even though they no longer pass laws, they have an inordinate amount of influence over the ones who do. Those who once beseeched the kings now are lobbyists, playing for their clients, and getting the laws and judgments passed in their favor. In India too, those who once owned the lands as kings in olden times now own the same lands through corporations. Democracy is just a façade put up on autocracy. And it is a beautiful façade too.
The voting public believes it has voted for the best man for the job. Yet they fail to realize that they have voted for the one who has marketed himself well to the public. They fail to realize that the best man might not even have contested for the elections and follow the herd, where the herder is a ruler in disguise. Those who do contest are photogenic people with ‘charmth and warmth’ and have good rhetoric skills. These are not required of a ruler…they are required for an actor. Yet, these politicians all over the world do put up a good drama, as they dance to the tunes of the same bloodlines, which once used to seat in the royal throne, but is now in the CEO’s chair, behind a corporation.
There are many reasons why democracy is loved all over the world. The most important selling points of democracy is the promise of better life,
and illusion of a share in the administration. These may not be achieved by a person outright. If the person fails to find what he wants, then democracy sells Hope too. Never to lose hope is what our wise old men have taught us. Having been unable to uncover the sham of the government themselves, they forward it to us in the category of ‘values and culture and tradition’. Secondly, since everyone is entitled to have a say in the administration, confusion and chaos soon engulfs the parliament halls, and the powerful among us strike at the right moment to have their way. Free mass media, one of the crown jewels of democracy, is measure of the public memory. The mass media decides what the public should listen to, what should be the headlines, and what should be mentioned in the sidelines. The mass media is one of the most powerful weapons in the autocratic rulers’ arsenal. Only that they wield it subtly.
Democracy is a necessity based on an idea of a ‘social contract’. People want to be free, but too much freedom can be dangerous. Hence, we surrender a few of our liberties in exchange for curtailing others’ freedom and for our own protection. Government, and by consequence, democracy is a form of social restriction. It makes no sense to say “I love democracy” and “I love freedom” in the same breath.
Communism, as described by Karl Marx, seems an ideal concept. Communism, as put into practice in the USSR and China, is a form of government totalitarianism that has led to brutalizing the populace. While Nazis and communists are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum, they use the same means to achieve their goals. India is a nation born from revolution against authority. It was founded on the ideal that ultimate power rests in the hands of its citizens. Communism dismisses this individual empowerment as ‘greed’, and assigns power to the State, commonly called the ‘collective’.
While democracy and brings in capitalism into a country, communism wants to abolish that capitalism and the competition that comes with it. So now democracy wants to remove communism from its country, but it can’t. Because a bunch of intellectuals and puppeteers just go on squabbling. Up comes a ruler, known as Hitler, and creates fascism (which promotes the genetic advantage in its propaganda), which hates communism. So capitalism and fascism together hate communism and they have war. Then fascists kill many people – and the world is afraid. So here comes democracy to the rescue again.
After having gone through all these ‘-isms’, I think that a conclusion can be reached – All form of government was designed to ‘control’ the disasters that crazy people could do. No government was ever designed to keep people happy.
Now we come to the final question – which is the better one? The indecisive among us might want a cocktail of all the three. They might try to take the good of each and leave out the bad of each form of governance. Big mistake. Nehru decided to make a mishmash of things, and create the Indian constitution from capitalism and socialism (i.e. communism) combined. This decision, taken with a personal bias, doomed India to almost forty years of economic struggle.
All forms of government were raised from personal ambitions. The young men of old times, in quest for power decided to organize things a bit. They had set their sharp eyes on the pinnacle of power and ultimate control. They got it. But once they got there, they got lonely at the top, and their vision blurred, and they faltered to keep their government alive. This is the usual power cycle.
What I would personally like, though, is the creation of a soft power. A government like water. If the government is too lethargic to set trends, then at least it should follow the trend. A country like France has always enjoyed respect across the globe. But it doesn’t figure anywhere at the top of many lists. It doesn’t have the largest military spending, it doesn’t have the best educational institutions, it doesn’t have the best geographical boundaries, nor is it an economic superpower in the literal sense. Yet, it is admired by everyone. The terrorists too, do not take it seriously. France is treading a very fine path. France has welcomed the capitalists into its fold. The renaissance artists, the cultists, the ones who want to enjoy life – all find a “Welcome” mat in France. That’s what governments should work like.
This one was written in Feb 2008. And holy cow I scored a hundred. All I spent was around 3.5 to 4 hours writing this paper at 2 in the night on some Saturday. Aarti Ma’am gave me a glowing statement which pumped me up – “Never have I given 100 to any philo assgnmnt. ButI cant give you even one mark less. Brilliantly written and thought about, You are an assett to my class, Keep it up.” But then on this day, I grasped the Zen concept of disconnectedness. Did my thought change before or after this comment by my teacher. Should there be any connection between the Rishi of yesterday and the Rishi of tomorrow?