Murder of Democracy

Leaders and the ideologies they propound ask a fundamental question, 'Is Humanity basically good or bad?'

Those who believe that Humanity is basically bad, unabashedly seek to concentrate power in their hands and dominate the masses with the help of a relatively small group of loyalists and supporters. It is usually centred around an ideology and a few personalities.

However whenever one entity tries to dominate another, conflict will naturally occur, as Theocracies, Dictatorships, Monarchs and Communists have discovered. 

Each type of domination has its advantages and disadvantages. The more overt the domination more the hostility. When domination is covert and subtle, the less the opposition by the dominated. 

Democracy has the unique distinction of the masses to choose who will dominate them, if even for a short while. Naturally  the people are more accepting of democracy than any other form of rule. 

Democracy is not a new concept it has existed in various forms for thousands of years. An interesting note is available on Wikipedia What is Democracy?

Though I quote American President John Adams, America is not the originator of democracy, though it is the loudest proponent of its own kind of democracy.

Known Western Democracy originated in Europe with Athens 508 -507 B.C.E. and then other City states and across Greece then Roman empire. It then spread across Europe and finally through post Colonial efforts it spread across the world.

In a democracy the politicians have to woo the electorate. This is relatively easy. They break up the electorate into tribes, religions, genders, race, caste, and then grant each group in the electorate with favours and privileges. With passage of time the tail increasingly wags the dog.

Wooing the electorate with the wealth of the state is easy. The politicians don't have to spend their own money, they just take it out of the State treasury and distribute it. 

As appeasement grows, which it will always do so in a democracy, more and more power and privileges flow to certain groups and the drain on the exchequer deepens. 

This is because in a democracy wealth flows from the producers to the non producers in the name of 'equality'. As a result the State sinks deeper and deeper spiritually, financially, socially, morally and culturally.

Naturally a State weakened by the burden of unsustainable load can no longer indulge the people. When governments cannot afford to indulge and bribe the electorate, restrictions are placed on the people and sacrifices are demanded of them.  First the people will grow angry, then furious and finally riots and violent protests will break out and one day democracy will collapse.

When this happens another form of government will step in, promising  to try and set things right. This new form of government will be very centralised and highly authoritative. The people will have lost their freedom and democratic rights. 

This calamity of the death of democracy may be delayed by a wise population but its death is inevitable. That too, only if the people exercise their electoral and citizenship rights with responsibility as long as they can.

While on the topic one must look at a different kind of Socialistic Democracy that was practiced in India for 2000 years until the Muslim invaders tampered with it and the British completely dismantled it. 

Until this invasion on India's civilisational political structure India had a different kind of vibrant democracy. A system where every village was a Republic. 

In the Indian democratic system called the 'Asiatic Model' the people in society held much their resources in a common pool. The villagers themselves decided upon everything that impacted their lives through their Panchayat system (reintroduced in 1992). They paid their taxes to the ruler but otherwise they just minded their own affairs without any significant interference from a government bureaucracy and the ruling elites at the capitals.

The Cholas in South India had a well documented democratic electoral system in 920 C.E.  I am not sure there was any comparable system elsewhere in the world at that time.

About Gurvinder Singh
Post a comment on my website
Engage with Gurvinder Singh

Facebook - Twitter - linkedin - SikhNet - Instagram

What is Democracy?

'Truthification' - Why they convert a lie into a truth?

J Edgar Hoover

J. Edgar Hoover headed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of America and its 

predecessor organisation for 48 years (1924 -1972).  

In pursuit of so called, 'National Security', Hoover amassed great personal power by collecting large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians. 

John F Kennedy

When John F Kennedy was campaigning for presidency of the United States (1962) he vowed to replace Hoover on becoming president.  

After becoming President, Kennedy never touched Hoover. On the contrary extended his term and powers as director of the FBI. 


When asked why he kept Hoover on as FBI director, JFK bluntly replied. 

"I would rather have Hoover inside the tent pissing outside, rather than have him outside pissing inside."

What is inside the tent? 
It's called 'The Establishment'. 

Figuratively speaking the establishment consists of all people of significant consequence, i.e. all the politicians, bureaucrats, officials, business people, judges, priests, media persons, and others, even criminals. They are the people in every society who make things happen or stop them from happening.
Figuratively speaking, this establishment which holds effective power is always inside the tent. 

The opposition and the 'want-to-be inside the tent' gang up, and as Kennedy said, piss inside on the establishment.  They hope to derail all initiatives, discredit the establishment and seek for their ouster so that they can occupy and establish themselves inside the tent.

Those inside piss out and those outside keep pissing inside. This pissing match between government and opposition is called domestic politics. Vested interests in the bureaucracy, judiciary, religious organisations, business people, join and indulge in this dirty game to ensure that their preferred choices win and become the establishment. It is usually a 'no holds barred' fight because they believe that the ends justify the means.

To win the match, it is necessary to win the minds of the people by convincing them that the existing establishment and leadership is unfit because of immorality, incompetence, corruption etc.  That the opposition is the best alternative. 

One of the greatest beneficiaries of the pissing match is the media. They are the carriers of the charges and the counter-charges, they make gold from piss. 
By providing entertainment full of drama, mystery, money, sleaze, violence, corruption etc. sprinkled with a few facts, the media becomes enormously wealthy, powerful and influential.

Until now the media was almost the sole life giving and taking agency for politicians and their supporters. Thanks to social media their monopoly is constantly reducing, main stream media remains incredibly powerful.

With power always comes arrogance and corruption. They perceive themselves as makers and true leaders of society. They cannot remain neutral and play favourites.

The media become the shouting agents to smear (damage the reputation by false accusations or slander) entities and philosophies, culture and religions etc. undesirable with as much filth as they can get away with, without crossing a line which will cause the public to react adversely. 

Nancy Pelosi

How does this smear campaign work?
Ms. Nancy Pelosi leader of the Democratic political party and the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, a political veteran, explains how 'The Wrap up Smear' works.

First a politician or an academic or some person from an NGO or civil society will spew out allegations. 

Then one or a couple of  media sources will quote them, then a flood of allegations will be made by the media.
The politicians, will then quote the media and a falsehood becomes a perceived truth in the domestic and international public's mind.

Pinging and ponging, the allegations are bandied about endlessly and the the issue kept alive in the public's eyes and minds. 
In all the smearing and dirty tricks business the truth gets buried under an avalanche of lies. 

The main stream media has played this game too long for anyone's good.
Now Social media allows individuals to verify and provide counter views not from a corrupted press but from other individuals.

Now politicians and groups with vested interests are either conducting their own Social media campaigns or taking the assistance of the same  mainstream media who are taking to Social media themselves (with little impact).

We have to remember there are no truths just perceptions. He who wins the battle of the mind of the people will also win their hearts, and bodies. They will walk away with enormous power, influence and of course, a lot of money.

As a result of their perceived lack of integrity, Main Stream Media is losing ground and influence not only to individuals but also to  technology companies like Facebook, Twitter YouTube etc. 

Contrary to what we may like to believe, no mater who provides us the news, 
We the people are not the beneficiaries of news, we are the pawns and the victims.

____________________________________

About Gurvinder Singh

Post a comment on my website
Engage with Gurvinder Singh

Facebook - Twitter - linkedin - SikhNet - Instagram