Democracy defined:
“Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία [dimokratia], “popular government” which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), “people” and κράτος (kratos), “rule, strength”…” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy]
“[G]overnment by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy]
What we learn from this is that democracy is nothing but an expression of a thieverish mentality exhibited as the impossible attempt to steal “the supreme power” from God and give it to “the people“. It has therefore been said that…
“democracy…is best explained in religious terms: as a doctrine founded on the theology of man.”[..] ”…democracy is literally a form of anthropotheism because it invests man with virtues that are conventionally attributed to God.” [...] “…democracy promotes the idea of the absolute autonomy of humanity, and hence identifies the condition of man as one of total freedom and total sovereignity…” [Anthropotheism, Sergio Knipe, The Initiate, Journal of Traditional Studies, Issue 1, 2008]
Democracy is a result of the asuric (demoniac) mentality of “I am this body” and “I am the Lord of all I survey” that the living entity acquires when he rebels against God. Srila Prabhupada would often explain how this contaminated consciousness must be given up if we want to be happy:
“In contaminated consciousness “I am” means “I am the lord of all I survey. I am the enjoyer.” The world revolves because every living being thinks that he is the lord and creator of the material world. Material consciousness has two psychic divisions. One is that I am the creator, and the other is that I am the enjoyer. But actually the Supreme Lord is both the creator and the enjoyer, and the living entity, being part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, is neither the creator nor the enjoyer, but a cooperator. He is the created and the enjoyed. For instance, a part of a machine cooperates with the whole machine; a part of the body cooperates with the whole body. The hands, feet, eyes, legs and so on are all parts of the body, but they are not actually the enjoyers. The stomach is the enjoyer. The legs move, the hands supply food, the teeth chew and all parts of the body are engaged in satisfying the stomach because the stomach is the principal factor that nourishes the body’s organization. Therefore everything is given to the stomach. One nourishes the tree by watering its root, and one nourishes the body by feeding the stomach, for if the body is to be kept in a healthy state, then the parts of the body must cooperate to feed the stomach. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the enjoyer and the creator, and we, as subordinate living beings, are meant to cooperate to satisfy Him. This cooperation will actually help us, just as food taken by the stomach will help all other parts of the body. If the fingers of the hand think that they should take the food themselves instead of giving it to the stomach, then they will be frustrated. The central figure of creation and of enjoyment is the Supreme Lord, and the living entities are cooperators. By cooperation they enjoy. The relation is also like that of the master and the servant. If the master is fully satisfied, then the servant is satisfied. Similarly, the Supreme Lord should be satisfied, although the tendency to become the creator and the tendency to enjoy the material world are there also in the living entities because these tendencies are there in the Supreme Lord who has created the manifested cosmic world.” [Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita, As It is, Introduction, Pre 1973]
Conclusion
Because ”[t]he false ego -”I am,” and ”It is mine,” [...] constitute the basic principle of material existence…” [Prabhupada] some humans are attempting to steal “the supreme power” from God and invest it humanity. This demoniac mentality ought to be exchanged with a service attitude towards God, recognizing Him as the Supreme Lawmaker. The living being is by constitution a servant of God and must therefore obey His order. God is by constitution the Supreme Power and creates the moral laws by which the living entities must abide (dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam). God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and therefore He is the most qualified ruler. He has the supreme overview and He has the power to establish a perfect system of government which will makes us happy. We humans on the other hand are selfishly motivated, doesn’t have the complete overview and doesn’t have the power to create and maintain a perfect system of government. Hence it is an illusion to think there is anything good in trying to steal “the supreme power” from God and invest in humanity, the state, a dictator or whatever. If we do this we are committing sin and creating misery for ourselves and others by disturbing the natural way in which the universe should be operating.
11 responses so far ↓
Sita-pati das // 10/03/2009 at 09:30 |
Identifying a political structure as inherently atheistic is misleading.
As Srila Prabhupada explained in relation to economic systems: either communism or capitalism can work fine, as long as the people are Krishna Conscious. It’s the consciousness with which a system is operated that determines whether or not it is theistic or atheistic.
So Democracy is not atheistic when the people are Krishna Conscious. Otherwise monarchy (Maharaja Vena) or oligarchy (Zonal Acarya) are atheistic if the people in power are not KC.
Aristotle observed that monarchy is the most efficient form of government, both when it goes good and when it goes bad. Democracy on the other hand is inherently inefficient because it distributes power and requires consensus and compromise.
As a result, democracy is less dangerous when things go bad.
Therefore Aristotle explained that:
Good Monarchy = best.
Good Democracy=worst.
Bad Democracy=best of the bad.
Bad Monarchy=worst of the bad.
On the balance a democracy is the least dangerous overall.
This is summarized in BT Swami’s Leadership for an Age of Higher Consciousness (1 or 2 I can’t remember).
The GBC is an oligarchy, a form of limited democracy; and Srila Prabhupada often instructed his disciples to use democratic processes to take decisions – instructing them to consult amongst themselves, or to take a vote (eg: DOM).
So I don’t agree with your assertion that democracy is inherently atheistic.
Sita-pati das // 10/03/2009 at 22:41 |
And totalitarian fascism backed by the church, ala Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and the other dying gasps of the Church’s attempt to hold on to political power in the 20th century are so much better…
The Church’s attempt to hold on to social power through political involvement has given huge impetus to the current atheist blowback.
It’s Buddhism all over again.
Argument based on this: http://gaurangakishore.blogspot.com/2009/03/dsousa-hitchens-debate.html
Ajit // 11/03/2009 at 13:12 |
Dear Prabhu,
“As Srila Prabhupada explained in relation to economic systems: either communism or capitalism can work fine, as long as the people are Krishna Conscious.”
That’s all well and fine, but then it’s strictly speaking not a democracy anymore. Democracy is the idea that you give “the supreme power” to the people and whatever the majority of them decide, even if it is against Krishna Consciousness, must be accepted. That idea is atheistic in nature.
“It’s the consciousness with which a system is operated that determines whether or not it is theistic or atheistic.”
So democracy is atheistic.
This doesn’t not mean that we can’t use certain principles taken from democracy. Prabhupada did that.
Ajit // 11/03/2009 at 13:20 |
Dear Prabhu,
“And totalitarian fascism backed by the church, ala Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and the other dying gasps…”
You’re committing the “two wrongs make a right fallacy”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right
Sita-pati das // 11/03/2009 at 14:01 |
No, I’m not.
What I’m doing is positing a diametrically opposed system – totalitarianism, backed by the church.
Since you cast democracy as atheistic, and you identify yourself with Christians in another post, I cast your position as totalitarianism (as the opposite of democracy) and then link it with the Church in a way to turn popular opinion against you.
It’s what Christopher Hitchens would do.
Democracy is not atheistic.
All political systems in this world are subject to the vagaries of the human condition. A person may be Krishna conscious for some time, and not Krishna conscious at other times. Leadership may be Krishna conscious in one generation, and not in a successive one.
No political system is inherently atheistic or inherently theistic, any more than a set of clothes are. They are both tools. Democracy is set up to balance the realities of the human condition. Excesses are dampened. The story of Maharaja Venu demonstrates that sages choose even anarchy over monarchy with the wrong King. Is monarchy theistic? Is it atheistic? It’s a political system – neutral until operated by consciousness.
Rather than talking about “atheistic” political systems, you might do better to propose practical political systems that work in human communities and allow and help people to become Krishna conscious. Democracy at the moment seems to be the best one, as you are allowed to practice and preach Krishna Consciousness in it, as contrasted to regimes in other countries, where doing that is prohibited. I would be very careful about sawing off the branch you are standing on… :-)
Ajit // 11/03/2009 at 14:38 |
Dear Prabhu,
I don’t know how I have identified myself with Christians, but anyway…it’s still the “two wrongs make a right fallacy”. You can’t prove that democracy is good by arguing that my position is wrong or bad.
Democracy is not just a tool. It’s a tool with an inherent philosophy. All tools are created on the basis of a philosophy. The democratic philosophy is as I described in my post and comments. It’s a purely atheistic philosophy. Regarding monarchy, it depends on how it’s defined. You might construe a definition of democracy which makes it compatible with theism, but then the question arises: It it then a democracy? A “democracy” in which the people are only allowed to vote for Krishna Conscious leaders would hardly be considered a democracy. I would be considered a sort of theocracy. I would love to live in such a society though. Would you call a democracy a democracy if you had to vote for Christian leaders or atheistic leaders?
Regarding the practical aspects of all of this: Let’s discuss one thing at the time.
Even though democracy has some benefits for us right now doesn’t do anything to prove that democracy is good. If the people voted that from now on we are only allowed to vote for Christian leaders or atheistic leaders and voted KC illegal it would not be very good. And that’s what’s possible in a democracy – in its pure form. That’s what makes it atheistic.
Therefore we don’t really have democracy now. Governments have realized that we need to impose things like “human rights” (which are also secular and therefore also based on atheistic philosophy), freedom of speech etc.
Regarding totalitarianism and democracy you might read about “totalitarian democracy” ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy
Sita-pati das // 12/03/2009 at 00:23 |
Hahahaha – totalitarian democracy, that’s a good one.
Then it wouldn’t be democracy either. The idea of modern democracy is that the multiple cultures of the world need a meta-framework within which to co-exist.
National populations are no longer (as) homogeneous as previously in religion, race, culture, etc…
Therefore we need a political system which accommodates this reality. Democracy is not perfect, but then, no political system is.
Again, it all depends on the people involved. Want to “force” people to vote for KC leaders? Make everyone KC. You are afforded the opportunity to do that in a Western democracy.
Ajit // 12/03/2009 at 07:21 |
Dear Prabhu,
I agree that if everyone was KC, then democracy would work. But that doesn’t make democracy, defined as “the majority rules no matter what they decide” theistic. But anyway…
Even if we had such a KC “democracy” then I think we ought to add some things to make it better. I think we should the idea of meritocracy – KC meritocracy of course.
I also think that people should pass tests in order to vote and that some should have more to say than others. Democracy? I don’t know, but it sounds better to me.
Sita-pati das // 12/03/2009 at 09:24 |
No, but it does make it not (inherently atheistic).
I believe that’s one point to me – but who’s counting? ;-)
Another salient factor is that, according to the narrative, this is the age of the sudras, where no-one is particularly qualified. As Lord Acton observed: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely“.
Political structures with too much concentration of power are a bad thing(tm). We saw that with the Zonal Acarya system. Bad times. Lack of accountability, and a lot of abuse of power
Human beings are a mix of different things, and any human society in this world is also a mix, so a political system has to take that into account.
Modern democracies are not abstract ideals. They are complex systems with many governmental and non-governmental agents (such as a free press, and corporations) who all vie for influence over resources, including public opinion.
I think that any political system that gives Krishna Consciousness a fair go is good. If it really so superior and all-attractive, then you should have no need to argue for an artificial monopoly, no? A level playing field should be a walk home for it, if it really is good.
At the end of the day, as Srila Prabhupada says: “Purity is the force”. Democracy gives the opportunity to demonstrate that. It doesn’t stand in the way of world domination of Hare Krishna.
Ajit // 12/03/2009 at 15:28 |
Dear Prabhu,
“No, but it does make it not (inherently atheistic).”
Yes, it does! Democracy is atheistic, because it means that “WHATEVER the majority decides is made law” and that idea is evil. Apropos our previous discussion, Hitler was elected via democracy. This proves what democracy really is. Even if all people voted KC, then democracy would still be atheistic, because then democracy will still mean that “WHATEVER the majority decides is made law.”
Even if democracy has some good elements – like letting us preach it is still not good enough. At least not for me. People are unintelligent and so sentimental that they are immune to good, logical arguments. Therefore the best of people must lead. And that takes some forcing.
Ajit // 12/03/2009 at 15:29 |
btw…I don’t know when I will answer again. Some of my friends have just been involved in a serious car crash in India. You might have read about it at your page planetiskcon? Please pray for them!