'We are mad as hell', they said
I normally don't write posts like this. I refrain from commenting on the nature of man and the world around him/her because I know that it is rare for anyone to have the time or inclination to listen, and further the will to understand, given how our lives are these days. Also, it pays more to listen and keep listening if you are trying to establish a true view of the world. But today I'm in a good mood, so I'll type it out anyway and let's see what happens.
This is an interesting article: http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/03mumterror-we-are-mad-as-hell.htm (I have yet to read it all) however the paragraph below in paritcular interests me:
"So what's the permanent solution? "I plan to be at the Gateway next Wednesday too," says the young director, "And every week after that, I want like-minded youth to take up this cause -- we should meet every week, maybe not at the site, but to move in the right direction. We can also spread the word through the Internet and via SMS. We should create a civilian body that the government is answerable to, a body of citizens that can sit in on state security council meetings and enlighten the public about what is happening, pass on information about what is discussed etc. We spend Rs 1.25 crores on Parliament per day, which has convened only 50 sittings this year. Is this what we're paying tax for? Where are the solutions to our problems? The terrorists shut down the city for three days, then our politicians call bandhs and shut us down again! All they do is name bridges and parks after martyrs, instead of making sure that those brave people did not lay their lives down in vain."
It is interesting because it amuses me. It is amusing because it illustrates how two concepts are commonly misunderstood. These are the concepts of representative govt and democracy. Two concepts clubbed together normally as if they must go hand in hand. Although both are important parts of modern govt and together work towards the ideal they have very separate histories and thus must be treated separately to be understood. I will now begin to address these topics, beginning with
Democracy:
The rule of the free people. It is considered by many to be an integral part of an ideal govt. It is naturally what people would want and is the only form of govt that can be to their benefit. This is not true. It is true that democracy is beneficial, in the long term, but it is misunderstood as being natural in any way. The most natural form of govt is ultimately monarchy and I don't mean that everybody wants to be king, rather that everyone wants to be led. Ultimately being led means people don't have to think for themselves, relieving them of one of life's biggest burdens- the need to make decisions, especially big ones. In the short term, a monarchy is in everyone's favour (except maybe the king). A democracy(especially one where everyone is free) requires everyone to participate in big decisions- not to anyone's immediate benefit.
Democracy fails when people fail to understand its true nature- that everyone needs to think and take part. People fall back into the feudal state, and this failure is illustrated in people's need to identify politicians as a class of people. People think: for whatever they are worth, politicians rule the country, and just like feudal lords, when they fail the threat is uprising. People fail to consider them at par and to treat the nature of their own roles in the democracy properly. To do so would just not be easy. And that is to noone's benefit.
To be fair, politicians are not an arbitrary class in India as such. the true difference between 'them' and 'us' is that in modern India (and probably the world in general) politicians are those people who view politics as a profession. While it is ok for an official to be paid a salary, the problem lies with certain people being able to dedicate all of their time to the political process where everyone cannot. And this exists solely because political parties are funded organisations. To really deal with the issue of politicans, one must stop the funding, making it impossible for anyone to live off of politics alone. This levels the playing field. and opens up the possibility of a true democracy, where anyone can vote and anyone can stand for office.
Democracy is beneficial because noone is infallible and no bloodline can ensure good kings. Nor can a monarchy successfully stamp out the human ego. Therefore the only system that works, albeit bumpily, is Democracy. It can work, folks, but only if you want it to, and only if you understand what it is really supposed to do.
And so I reiterate: Democracy's purpose is to give everyone a voice, so that noone feels the need to seize control by physical force. And that is all that it's purpose is.
now for the second
Representative Government:
Again here misunderstandings lead people to expect not what the system is designed to do, but results that are not part of the system. For representative government we shall start by going back to its roots. We last visited Democracy, who's roots I may mention, are in ancient Greece (or maybe further, but that's just bickering, really) wherein the 'free people' or demos (Athenian men in their case, not everyone like these days) were each given a voice in government. When big decisions had to be made, they all gathered in one place and decided what to do. Surprisingly, representative government has roots that go much further back than that.
Representative govt has its roots in the most basic and ancient methods of government, tribes. People usually formed groups loosely based on lineage, called tribes, and tribes were run by a chief or a council of elders. These were infact the first representatives, MPs if you will. They were the face and the voice of the tribe, something especially important when it came to dealing with other tribes. Modern Representative Government descends from this concept of tribes over the centuries via systems of govt such as the Plebeian Tribunes of Rome (not the Patricians, the Patrician Senators were more like the Demos of Athens (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you can look it all up on wiki, but you don't have to)) So basically MPS, Senators and whoever, exist to give a voice to one group of people, just like tribal leaders in tribunal meetings and once you get that, we can move on to Modern Representative Govt
The purpose of Modern Representative government is Not to get together the best people you can find to represent you and see if they can come up with magical solutions to all of your problems. It is far from being a panacea for all the worlds needs (as we well know) However this is not a failure of representative govt. The purpose of representative govt is very simple. Peace.
Or to put it in long form, the purpose is to create a platform where different tribes can get together and discuss their issues and possible solutions on paper instead of fighting it out. It is not supposed to stop fighting or bickering or ill will between groups, but rather to make sure there is a process to sort out this ill will without the loss of life. One cannot expect every one of today's issues to be solved amicably, but if the purpose of a representative govt is understood, the percentage of physical conflicts avoidable increases dramatically.
One of the best examples of a Representative Govt (especially because it is not in the context of a representative democracy) is the UN. The UN is a highly maligned organisation, accused of impotence and failure. Of course it fails. Its not supposed to bring peace by enforcing the law, and noone understands just how it is supposed to bring peace. Once again the UN as a govt where representatives of various nations/tribes can get together and talk, will not work as a magical think tank, enforcing ideals. It can however work as a platform for on-paper resolution, provided that processes that make such resolutions and changes possible are made integral parts of its structure. the deals that are made underground and out of sight need to be made there, in the open, and accepted the way they are with no pretence of enforcing morals. Only then will it be taken seriously, and only then can it truly be an instrument of peace. What the UN lacks is not an Executive branch, or a Judiciary, or even a potent Army. It lacks a Legislature.
Back to the point. Representative govts have special meaning for democracies. They have a logistical significance in that, firstly, it would be difficult for a nation of one billion to meet like the Demos did. Secondly, when a nation is vast, and its issues are varied and complex, it is important for some people to exist who see the big picture (which is why managers exist, by the way- not just to be slave drivers. If people understood this, offices might be more efficient too).
***
After this long lecture, dear survivors, I can finally really get back to the point. Which is why I find the above paragraph amusing. The man talks about setting up a committee to monitor the activities of the Parliament. That is, he wants representatives of the people present in the Parliament to make sure the country is well taken care of. If you have understood what I have told you in the above paragraphs, you should see this as the most ridiculous thing anyone could ever say. What the **** does he think the parliament Is?
To explain(if you are as tired as I am and still don't get it) what he wants is people to be in the parliament who will watch over politicians and report back to us. All well and good. Except that these people can only be a select few. We can't have everyone going there, so they have to be representatives. Also they must represent the people evenly, so they'd have to be elected. Since they'll be elected by the people, it is natural to assume those with the most time and energy to lobby for such a position would win.
Elective representatives from the pool of people with the time to do nothing else but get themselves elected hmmm....He wants to deal with the problem of politicians with (all together now!) more Politicians!!!!!!!!!
Now I am going to bed. I promise i will edit this cause I'm sure its roughshod. But I hope you've learned your lessons. Good night!
This is an interesting article: http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/03mumterror-we-are-mad-as-hell.htm (I have yet to read it all) however the paragraph below in paritcular interests me:
"So what's the permanent solution? "I plan to be at the Gateway next Wednesday too," says the young director, "And every week after that, I want like-minded youth to take up this cause -- we should meet every week, maybe not at the site, but to move in the right direction. We can also spread the word through the Internet and via SMS. We should create a civilian body that the government is answerable to, a body of citizens that can sit in on state security council meetings and enlighten the public about what is happening, pass on information about what is discussed etc. We spend Rs 1.25 crores on Parliament per day, which has convened only 50 sittings this year. Is this what we're paying tax for? Where are the solutions to our problems? The terrorists shut down the city for three days, then our politicians call bandhs and shut us down again! All they do is name bridges and parks after martyrs, instead of making sure that those brave people did not lay their lives down in vain."
It is interesting because it amuses me. It is amusing because it illustrates how two concepts are commonly misunderstood. These are the concepts of representative govt and democracy. Two concepts clubbed together normally as if they must go hand in hand. Although both are important parts of modern govt and together work towards the ideal they have very separate histories and thus must be treated separately to be understood. I will now begin to address these topics, beginning with
Democracy:
The rule of the free people. It is considered by many to be an integral part of an ideal govt. It is naturally what people would want and is the only form of govt that can be to their benefit. This is not true. It is true that democracy is beneficial, in the long term, but it is misunderstood as being natural in any way. The most natural form of govt is ultimately monarchy and I don't mean that everybody wants to be king, rather that everyone wants to be led. Ultimately being led means people don't have to think for themselves, relieving them of one of life's biggest burdens- the need to make decisions, especially big ones. In the short term, a monarchy is in everyone's favour (except maybe the king). A democracy(especially one where everyone is free) requires everyone to participate in big decisions- not to anyone's immediate benefit.
Democracy fails when people fail to understand its true nature- that everyone needs to think and take part. People fall back into the feudal state, and this failure is illustrated in people's need to identify politicians as a class of people. People think: for whatever they are worth, politicians rule the country, and just like feudal lords, when they fail the threat is uprising. People fail to consider them at par and to treat the nature of their own roles in the democracy properly. To do so would just not be easy. And that is to noone's benefit.
To be fair, politicians are not an arbitrary class in India as such. the true difference between 'them' and 'us' is that in modern India (and probably the world in general) politicians are those people who view politics as a profession. While it is ok for an official to be paid a salary, the problem lies with certain people being able to dedicate all of their time to the political process where everyone cannot. And this exists solely because political parties are funded organisations. To really deal with the issue of politicans, one must stop the funding, making it impossible for anyone to live off of politics alone. This levels the playing field. and opens up the possibility of a true democracy, where anyone can vote and anyone can stand for office.
Democracy is beneficial because noone is infallible and no bloodline can ensure good kings. Nor can a monarchy successfully stamp out the human ego. Therefore the only system that works, albeit bumpily, is Democracy. It can work, folks, but only if you want it to, and only if you understand what it is really supposed to do.
And so I reiterate: Democracy's purpose is to give everyone a voice, so that noone feels the need to seize control by physical force. And that is all that it's purpose is.
now for the second
Representative Government:
Again here misunderstandings lead people to expect not what the system is designed to do, but results that are not part of the system. For representative government we shall start by going back to its roots. We last visited Democracy, who's roots I may mention, are in ancient Greece (or maybe further, but that's just bickering, really) wherein the 'free people' or demos (Athenian men in their case, not everyone like these days) were each given a voice in government. When big decisions had to be made, they all gathered in one place and decided what to do. Surprisingly, representative government has roots that go much further back than that.
Representative govt has its roots in the most basic and ancient methods of government, tribes. People usually formed groups loosely based on lineage, called tribes, and tribes were run by a chief or a council of elders. These were infact the first representatives, MPs if you will. They were the face and the voice of the tribe, something especially important when it came to dealing with other tribes. Modern Representative Government descends from this concept of tribes over the centuries via systems of govt such as the Plebeian Tribunes of Rome (not the Patricians, the Patrician Senators were more like the Demos of Athens (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you can look it all up on wiki, but you don't have to)) So basically MPS, Senators and whoever, exist to give a voice to one group of people, just like tribal leaders in tribunal meetings and once you get that, we can move on to Modern Representative Govt
The purpose of Modern Representative government is Not to get together the best people you can find to represent you and see if they can come up with magical solutions to all of your problems. It is far from being a panacea for all the worlds needs (as we well know) However this is not a failure of representative govt. The purpose of representative govt is very simple. Peace.
Or to put it in long form, the purpose is to create a platform where different tribes can get together and discuss their issues and possible solutions on paper instead of fighting it out. It is not supposed to stop fighting or bickering or ill will between groups, but rather to make sure there is a process to sort out this ill will without the loss of life. One cannot expect every one of today's issues to be solved amicably, but if the purpose of a representative govt is understood, the percentage of physical conflicts avoidable increases dramatically.
One of the best examples of a Representative Govt (especially because it is not in the context of a representative democracy) is the UN. The UN is a highly maligned organisation, accused of impotence and failure. Of course it fails. Its not supposed to bring peace by enforcing the law, and noone understands just how it is supposed to bring peace. Once again the UN as a govt where representatives of various nations/tribes can get together and talk, will not work as a magical think tank, enforcing ideals. It can however work as a platform for on-paper resolution, provided that processes that make such resolutions and changes possible are made integral parts of its structure. the deals that are made underground and out of sight need to be made there, in the open, and accepted the way they are with no pretence of enforcing morals. Only then will it be taken seriously, and only then can it truly be an instrument of peace. What the UN lacks is not an Executive branch, or a Judiciary, or even a potent Army. It lacks a Legislature.
Back to the point. Representative govts have special meaning for democracies. They have a logistical significance in that, firstly, it would be difficult for a nation of one billion to meet like the Demos did. Secondly, when a nation is vast, and its issues are varied and complex, it is important for some people to exist who see the big picture (which is why managers exist, by the way- not just to be slave drivers. If people understood this, offices might be more efficient too).
***
After this long lecture, dear survivors, I can finally really get back to the point. Which is why I find the above paragraph amusing. The man talks about setting up a committee to monitor the activities of the Parliament. That is, he wants representatives of the people present in the Parliament to make sure the country is well taken care of. If you have understood what I have told you in the above paragraphs, you should see this as the most ridiculous thing anyone could ever say. What the **** does he think the parliament Is?
To explain(if you are as tired as I am and still don't get it) what he wants is people to be in the parliament who will watch over politicians and report back to us. All well and good. Except that these people can only be a select few. We can't have everyone going there, so they have to be representatives. Also they must represent the people evenly, so they'd have to be elected. Since they'll be elected by the people, it is natural to assume those with the most time and energy to lobby for such a position would win.
Elective representatives from the pool of people with the time to do nothing else but get themselves elected hmmm....He wants to deal with the problem of politicians with (all together now!) more Politicians!!!!!!!!!
Now I am going to bed. I promise i will edit this cause I'm sure its roughshod. But I hope you've learned your lessons. Good night!
posted by Chitrak at 10:25 AM
1 comments
