Imagining an alternative to today's democracy
I wonder if democracy IS the best form of governance. The fact that today’s world is not tolerant of any other form of governance does point in that direction. That the West which is accepted as a model of democracy and the rest of the world which agrees that the democracy of the best form of governance will not accept, say a dictator in Pakistan is an important argument. The world after all is too interlinked today for any country to not conform to generally accepted norms about human rights and governance systems.
But then what if the world WAS tolerant of a form of governance other than democracy? What if we had an undisputed right to choose the form of governance that was most suitable to the socio economic fabric of our country? Would democracy have still been a better form of governance?
Let’s imagine an alternate system of governance; let’s take an autocratic form of rule as an example. It would be beyond argument that one person making all decisions according to his personal judgment would end up, even in good faith, making decisions that are actually not the best. That’s the limitation of an individual human being. So lets say that this dictator had a council of ministers who made decisions by majority and presented the recommendations to the King who would then chose whether to go with the recommendation or not. And how would these ministers be chosen? If they were handpicked by the king, then there would be lack of merit in the system. So, let’s assume that these ministers came to the fore by means of a merit based competitive mechanism. Such ministers would be there for each administrative unit i.e cities and provinces so there would be an entire structure of such ministers. These ministers would then rise up in that structure and come to the top “federal” level so that they could advise the king on making such decisions. But if these ministers have risen to the top based on merit and then would make recommendations based on majority, then what is the need for a king? What value is the king adding when capable people who are the product of a meritocracy are making decisions? Let’s eliminate the king from this structure!
Now this system of governance would be similar to bureaucracy with the only difference being that decisions would be made through collective wisdom and consensus. But what kind of decisions are we talking of here? What is the role of this structure of ministers? Is it law making? Yes. There would obviously have to be institutions looking after law and order (police), interpreting law (judiciary), managing municipal affairs etc. So this would essentially be a parliament with representatives coming in through merit and not on the basis of votes. Such a system would result in the elimination of a lot of the weaknesses of democracy that result from the power structures of society, like feudalism, corrupt politicians who have their own constituencies etc.
That’s certainly, an alternative form of governance that is as logical as democracy. Perhaps that’s why the Prophet (P.B.U.H) never specified how to govern while on the other hand he laid out recommendations for even the smallest aspects of life; he just told us the principles.
Democracy is just a transitory phase between monarchy and anarchy. History is witness to it and is very well covered by Machiavelli the cyclical form of governances.
ReplyDeleteI don't even believe democracy makes sense logically, we have only been made to believe that. Capitalism, the foundation of democracy, advocates inequality in economic power, whereas supports social equality. CEOs of companies are based on merit hence selected, not elected on popularity.
The west supports democracy as it's in a transition, we have already seen what happens when governments are elected on whims of myopic average voter, Greece, which arguably chants to be the oldest democracy in the world. People want life easy, and need to be disciplined from top. Al farabi himself said that caliphate stricture is best represented by platos aristocracy. Imagine if pre Islam Arabs were to chose a leader based on popular vote, we will be having legislations being passed where female infanticide would be legal.
We need to be ruled by the superhuman of neitsczhe, carlyles genius or aristotles philosopher king. However ppl of such high integrity/ intelligence would not go begging for vote if approvals from naive subordinate humans.
I can argue all day on the cons of democracy, however being a selfish sloth myself I would want the option to chose my parents, teachers, police and everyone who could facilitate my individualistic interests.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner- aristotle
ReplyDeletePs edit on my first comment plz genius was Schopenhauer concept, Carlyle had introduced the conept of Hero
ReplyDeletevalid observations haris although some elaboration on the philosophy would have helped..but you're right about the contradiction of democracy in which it is based on capitalism(& its inherent inequality) on one hand and on the other hand, on equal rights of voters and citizens..similarly, democracy ahs to have some boundaries in which law making should be done & you're absolutley right about the pre-islamic arab example. This is why an Islamic demicracy is one in which law making ois donewithin the bounds of Shariah because sovereignty lies with God and NOT with the law-making institution (Parliament)..BUT monarchy is a certain no-no if compared to democracy anyday, i still maintain..
ReplyDeleteThe great countries and democracies you talk about owe their current positions to absolutism. Furthermore you only see examples of democracies prospering in current times, which I have maintained is a temporary glitch. Going back in order great empires from today's china, ussr, British empire, ottoman empire, Prussian empire, Japanese empire, Muslim empire, roman empire, Mongol empire all are based on absolutism. Individual needs to suffer for the nation to prosper. The whole is greater than sum of parts.
ReplyDeleteI also understand your concern on monarchy, where a tyrant can ruin it all. But we need to reintroduce the concept of benevolent despots and enlightened absolutism for that matter, that concentration of power is not abused.
I must say that you've quoted valid examples..but then there are also the examples of US, Canada & India (fast developing) which thrived in democracy..also the collapse of the Berlin war reaffirmed belief that the democracy of west germany was superior to the authoritarianism of east germany..Similarly, South Korea 1987 onwards is another case in point for democracy..the empires youve mentioned all eventually collapsed but the american empire is still intact..and other ex authoritarian states such as Britain and Japan despite having experienced success from absolutism eventually turned to democracy which brought them a different kind of success (they didnt become big empires again but they gained economic success like never before)..until the democratic powers of today collapse (& as you call it the temporary glitch ends), we will have little argument against the freedom of life that is offered by democracy
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing these notable democratic names into discussion, as I would want you to. I'll start with the great USA, stalwart of equal rights irrespective of social, morAl or economic standing, yet i see their democratic practices in the security council so frequently using the "very democratic veto". yet a country with less than 50% voter turnout, meaning essentially half the population doesn't believe their vote will make a difference in this two party system. Not to mention it's not even been a century since half the population ( women) were also included in the suffrage to define it as a pure democracy. Also I would not know if the country would fare better in a single party or aristocratic rule and be more stronger than it is now. Howevver I will give examples of progress in countries having utilized both later.
ReplyDeleteIndia our other great example of democracy, again lower than 50% turnout, example of corruption and poverty. The malnutrition has gone worse in the last 10 years, during a time when even Pakistan improved on the index. More than quarter of the population lives below poverty line till now, whereas the very neighboring china has less 3% below the level, enjoying the same populous geographic advantages and starting of at the same time.
East and west Germany had more to do with atrocities of ussr on east German population, and you would agree, and hence it was foreign relations that created disparity, not governmental structure.
South Korea even from 1960 to 1980s recorded cagr of more than 8%. All major industries were put during that time which they are enjoying to date and saved them from three pursuing crises in 97, 01' and 08 caused by the democratics extensive venture to boost GDP thru artificial means of banking, but getting saved by the real sector eventually.
However, my stance remains the same as now I compare history of nations, may it be France's three revolutions pree 1900s, or Germans post world war 1 period, or three British revolutions pre 1700s, all these countries went to democratic means and fell back to totalitarian rule of law. This cycle will continue. I can go on quoting examlples of Pakistan Bangladesh Thailand where military rule, or imperial intervention is always welcomed, to further prove my point. But essence of the debate is a commoner is called a commoner for a reason and he can not make a noble decision.