Dear Hari
I have a question
About democracy and monarchi
As we previously were educated by Iscon the monarchy is better then the democracy and in this regard the questions rose.
Is it so.,?
If the monarch is the person like Arjuna or Yudhisthir then no question .
If the king sacrificing his life for the citizens then no questions but if he just enjoying the position then definitely it is harmful for everybody.
I want to analyze the essence of this two ways of government.
The monarchy in general means that people don’t think much about political situations of there own country about economy and so .on all
the burden of all that issues is lying on the shoulders of King and ministers.
People just living there life and doing what they should do and completely depending on the kings
This is sound as it was said in Iscon just do what you said to do and the rest Guru will take care,no personal responsibility/
And this is the core also of cast system one should know only what his cast suppose to know and so on.
From the other side if one don’t really take personal responsibility then he will not grow and this is right not only for the individuals but for the
group of peoples countries I mean if the citizen feel that he should take and have responsibility for his country for the whole society
for the every aspect of political economical spiritual sides of society then it better for both personal and communal development.
But this can happen only in democratically way of governing.
Yes it is true that if 100000 stupid people chouse the president they will chouse the similar to there level person, but this is not bad
after several stupid chooses they will see the result of there decision and feel it on there own life then definitely they will become
more clever and chouse the one who are really not cheating who are really good one.
Ofcourse the system of chousing is really very corrupted and not sure instrument but is nt it that time can improve it?.
Actually all this is just a compressing thoughts I really don’t know what is better but I feel that the personal responsibility is very important
point in real society.
And the real meaning of society is the personal grow of each individuals not only the elite groups/
And the idea that one group is just developing just only by serving the other group from my point is very harmful idea.
Everybody can serve anybody if he want s to do that but make it the eternal obligation for anybody it is completely all destroying idea.
And the old monarchial based on the authorities of government and the slavery mentalities of citizens is not at all appropriate and not work at all
all this from my point don’t giving the possibility fro personal grow of everybody there should be absolute equivalently of possibilities for everybody and the present society is much closer to that then even the one
about which I am reading in mahabharat.
So can you please say what you think about these interesting issues
Althought while i was writing this question then arrised another way off governing it is more close to real vedic way there was
a group of realy realised souls who was chousing the king and when they saw that the king not doing well they dissmised him Like Chanakya Pandit.
But then arising the question how and where these kind of souls will apear and who will appoint them?
Kings or parlament
-
kamalamala
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 7:00 pm
- Location: russia
- Contact:
Re: Kings or parlament
It seems appropriate to state, "some monarchies were better than some democracies and some democracies were better than some monarchies." More than this, any absolute statement that one is better than the other is simply a matter of opinion. I see good and bad in both systems and this is historically verified. Some kings were good and people flourished. Some were terrible and people suffered. This is a pattern throughout all political systems.
The idea that monarchy is better is based in the logic that a leader groomed for their position and unquestioned in their authority has a better chance to rule properly than someone whose main qualification is convincing others to elect them to office. Yet, those who live in a hierarchical framework look down upon people who are lower than them. Such elitists cannot imagine lower class people being involved in the selection of a ruler. It is in their interests to keep people ignorant and use them as laborers as this solidifies their power. Democracy enables education and personal growth and allows individuals to expand towards their full potential. Because of this it empowers individuals.
The so-called vedic conception of monarchy added the element of spiritual qualification and spiritual responsibility. The King was groomed as a spiritually aware person who considered the physical and spiritual needs of the people as his topmost duty. This idea is attractive because it seemingly guarantees a well run society of satisfied people who end up in the spiritual world. From this extremely idealistic point of view, such a King is to be desired over a democratically elected leader whose personal qualification is suspect and whose daily choices are manipulated by opinion polls, lobbyists, the need to be re-elected, personal gain and so on.
But this is all theoretical for such saintly Kings do not exist and have not existed for a very long time. Some argue they never existed for one has to take it on faith that these idealistic descriptions are correct. Ultimately, it is a matter of personal belief. If you believe the descriptions you will conclude the older system was better. If you disbelieve these descriptions you will look at the historical records of the past few thousand years and find the majority of people being exploited in various forms of slavery by self-interested Kings. Royalty got a bad name for a good reason. People could no longer tolerate it and rebelled.
Democracy might have a bad name amongst those who truly believe the ideal of saintly monarchy, but considering the lack of saintly monarchs and a system within which they can rule, there is no reason to even discuss which is better. The question might be rephrased as, "Is the idealistic concept of perfect Kings better than our realized experience of the foibles of modern democratically elected leaders?" The reader can come to his or her own conclusions.
It seems to me that the common man is not involved in governing in either system as the real workings of politics are insulated from our influence and therefore how the individual interacts with the government is not so significant; rather, one has to see that the government interacts properly with the people. Personal responsibility is the same in all societies and it is important for all regardless of the political system within which we live. I appreciate your recognition that modern man has more facility to create life according to his choice than previously.
Even during the seemingly ideal vedic time, there were many evil or demonic Kings who had to be killed by the ideal King to maintain peace. This became a source of familial devastation when millions of men died in the battle of Kuruksetra leaving millions of widows and fatherless children. It is significant that the most righteous of the Kings admitted that their opponent was a good King and society was running well. Since society was running well and the people were properly cared for, the war was over other issues. Naturally this is explained in various ways, but even in ideal times there is unavoidable political conflict when powerful people interact.
There was a code at that time that all warfare took place in isolated battlefields far away from residential areas and that the primary battle was between the Kings and their armies. I like the idea that the King led the battle and risked his life, for it tempered the tendency for arm-chair politicians to go to war and let other's fight their battles. I love the idea that warriors fought in battlefields far from residential areas.
None of these points prove that monarchy is a better system. We can say that monarchy seemed to function at that time. We cannot say there was less war, but we can say the war affected the residential areas less.
And like you say, how do we go about appointing the guardians of society to make sure the King acts in the best interests of the people?
Politics is very complex and my personal inclination is to avoid them. I have seen scholars on differing sides of various political issues argue intelligently and convincingly for one can see any issue nowadays from many perspectives. Life is very complex. Democracy is complex and until someone comes up with a better system, it is all we have to work with.
The idea that monarchy is better is based in the logic that a leader groomed for their position and unquestioned in their authority has a better chance to rule properly than someone whose main qualification is convincing others to elect them to office. Yet, those who live in a hierarchical framework look down upon people who are lower than them. Such elitists cannot imagine lower class people being involved in the selection of a ruler. It is in their interests to keep people ignorant and use them as laborers as this solidifies their power. Democracy enables education and personal growth and allows individuals to expand towards their full potential. Because of this it empowers individuals.
The so-called vedic conception of monarchy added the element of spiritual qualification and spiritual responsibility. The King was groomed as a spiritually aware person who considered the physical and spiritual needs of the people as his topmost duty. This idea is attractive because it seemingly guarantees a well run society of satisfied people who end up in the spiritual world. From this extremely idealistic point of view, such a King is to be desired over a democratically elected leader whose personal qualification is suspect and whose daily choices are manipulated by opinion polls, lobbyists, the need to be re-elected, personal gain and so on.
But this is all theoretical for such saintly Kings do not exist and have not existed for a very long time. Some argue they never existed for one has to take it on faith that these idealistic descriptions are correct. Ultimately, it is a matter of personal belief. If you believe the descriptions you will conclude the older system was better. If you disbelieve these descriptions you will look at the historical records of the past few thousand years and find the majority of people being exploited in various forms of slavery by self-interested Kings. Royalty got a bad name for a good reason. People could no longer tolerate it and rebelled.
Democracy might have a bad name amongst those who truly believe the ideal of saintly monarchy, but considering the lack of saintly monarchs and a system within which they can rule, there is no reason to even discuss which is better. The question might be rephrased as, "Is the idealistic concept of perfect Kings better than our realized experience of the foibles of modern democratically elected leaders?" The reader can come to his or her own conclusions.
It seems to me that the common man is not involved in governing in either system as the real workings of politics are insulated from our influence and therefore how the individual interacts with the government is not so significant; rather, one has to see that the government interacts properly with the people. Personal responsibility is the same in all societies and it is important for all regardless of the political system within which we live. I appreciate your recognition that modern man has more facility to create life according to his choice than previously.
Even during the seemingly ideal vedic time, there were many evil or demonic Kings who had to be killed by the ideal King to maintain peace. This became a source of familial devastation when millions of men died in the battle of Kuruksetra leaving millions of widows and fatherless children. It is significant that the most righteous of the Kings admitted that their opponent was a good King and society was running well. Since society was running well and the people were properly cared for, the war was over other issues. Naturally this is explained in various ways, but even in ideal times there is unavoidable political conflict when powerful people interact.
There was a code at that time that all warfare took place in isolated battlefields far away from residential areas and that the primary battle was between the Kings and their armies. I like the idea that the King led the battle and risked his life, for it tempered the tendency for arm-chair politicians to go to war and let other's fight their battles. I love the idea that warriors fought in battlefields far from residential areas.
None of these points prove that monarchy is a better system. We can say that monarchy seemed to function at that time. We cannot say there was less war, but we can say the war affected the residential areas less.
And like you say, how do we go about appointing the guardians of society to make sure the King acts in the best interests of the people?
Politics is very complex and my personal inclination is to avoid them. I have seen scholars on differing sides of various political issues argue intelligently and convincingly for one can see any issue nowadays from many perspectives. Life is very complex. Democracy is complex and until someone comes up with a better system, it is all we have to work with.