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

If people want to destroy society then ....

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

Facebook - Twitter - linkedin - SikhNet - Instagram

Society is like a stew

"Society is like a stew. If you don’t stir it up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top."

— Edward Abbey

Ineptocracy

Power hungry people always find a way to get to the top of the pyramid of power or die trying. They know how to use and discard people and manipulate levers of power effectively. Power is so intoxicating that people who acquire it become insatiable and typically want more and more until they themselves are consumed by power itself.

Democracy as it was born gave relief to the masses and a good shot at changing their means of survival and progress. It however requires that the people exercise wisdom in the choices they make. Democracy is unfortunately under siege. Instead of providing a better world and India, it has in fact mutated into something toxic called an 'ineptocracy'.

People are made to believe that democracy provides a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Nothing can be further from the truth. Leaving aside the rhetoric, the press briefings and speeches, it is now 'a government of the evil, by the cunning and power hungry for the benefit of a select few.'

History clearly shows that across the world across nearly all time that a group of people representing a marginal percentage of  the population are the 'haves' and the vast majority are the 'have nots'. The politician needs the money and resources of the haves and the voting numbers of the 'have nots', while promising to protect each group from the other.

Our current model of government evolved a long time ago and the result is INEPTOCRACY, which can be defined as; 

A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

When a state reaches a position where approximately 50% of it's citizens rely on the largess of the state for their continued sustenance, the form of government becomes one of ineptocracy.

The least capable to lead are not fools, they are extremely intelligent and cunning with questionable morals. They just know how to game the system and devote their whole lives in manipulating the system. The only consolation for Indians is that this disease is not restricted to our country but even to most of the developed countries.

People making choices on careers and electing their leaders should do a bit of homework and then make informed choices on how to proceed. I for one, am not going to vote for people that will push us further towards an ineptocracy. 

______________________________

What are the management lessons I can share with you?

An outcome of my many years of teaching and consulting with organisations and families, it is observed that there are 3 possible types of leaders, based on rewards and punishments. 

The first is the briber. This person is normally an incompetent person and has no other choice but to keep bribing the people to support him or her. This is not difficult to implement because one can always be gracious with someone else's money and resources. This is why the government of India under the UPA leadership has been compelled to spend Rs 11 trillion in past decade in programs of highly questionable value. The follower or employee gladly takes the bribes but often feels offended and alienated. When the sops dry up the followers leave and seek other alternatives.  A problem for bribers is that the followers or dependents become addicted to sops and soon grow dissatisfied and they need even larger doses of bribes. Such leaders are initially lauded but soon despised, and they are almost always never respected. 

The second type are the slave drivers or 'intimidators', the primary tool they use is fear. They so intimidate the followers that they do not dare disobey. They work towards crushing the individuality and collective identity of people. Once implemented this approach delivers very fast results and impact of change can be rapid. This is possibly what is happening in China. Unfortunately gains tend to reverse as soon as the fear factor diminishes. The performance of followers is also just above bare minimum so that they escape punishment. Many school teachers and administrations also use this approach. Such leaders are often hated. They demand respect but almost never get it. 

The third type are the true leaders, they use a blend of positive reinforcement while wielding a big stick.  They normally have a well thought out strategy which is communicated and excites their followers. The leader's dream becomes the dream and vision of the followers. This is based on educating, facilitating, supporting and encouraging followers. Performers are suitably rewarded after evaluation by a transparent system, and non performers are encouraged to perform better after due dialogue and analysis. The laggards are often cast aside and supported to survive but fall behind the main group.  This approach is the foundation and builds a meritocracy. Typically leaders adopting this style of leadership are hated and loved at the same time, but always command respect.

Dance Bars are back.

The Supreme court recently quashed the law passed by the state government of Maharashtra banning the operation of dance bars. Many hailed this verdict as a great economic boon as it will now bring in more than Rs 3000 Crores (US$ 550 Million) annual revenue to the state and provide jobs to 100,000 bar dancers, and another 90,000 allied jobs.

A question arises. Is this type of economic growth that is going to make us a better society? Would we like to see a daughter or sister in this profession?

Sure we want to reduce material poverty but does it have to be by impoverishing the character and spirit particularly of girls and young people? Bad things happen everywhere but civilized people and the government cannot be party to promoting such things.

True economic progress can only come from social progress, and true social progress can only come when women and families are treated with dignity. The building block of a society is the family. Wherever families are torn apart the fabric of society is greatly damaged and communities and even nations become dysfunctional.

Men may make houses, but women make homes. A house is just a cold lifeless structure and a home is a place filled with hope, joy, dignity and courage. The soul of our society is embedded in our womenfolk. 

Women should work and pursue careers only out of choice and not out of necessity. Necessity often leads to exploitation and misery of the weak.

What will be the fate of those children that come home to a no parent or single parent home? What sort of a mother or wife will a woman make who has been reduced to a thing and that too an undignified one?

It is said God has distributed his work to mothers. Generally wherever people have excelled there is inevitably the influence of a woman.
Traditional Indian teachings lay great emphasis on love and respect of women. It was taught that "The Gods dwell where the womenfolk are happy".


There is hope that wise and noble people in society will raise our consciousness and pave the way for justice for the weak and exploited  in our society as can be seen from the example of an Indonesian judge.


An Indonesian judge by the name of Marzuki was sitting in judgment of an old lady who pleaded guilty   of stealing some tapioca from a plantation. In her defense she admitted to the judge that she was indeed guilty of the crime because she was poor. and her son was sick while her grandchild was hungry.

The plantation manager insisted that she be punished as a deterrent to others.

The judge going through the facts and the documents then looked up and said to the old lady, "I'm sorry but I cannot make any exception to the law and you must be punished" The old lady was fined Rp 1 million (US$ 100) and was informed that if she could not pay the fine then she would be jailed for two and a half years as demanded by the law.

The old lady broke down and wept as she could not pay the fine.

The judge then took off his hat and put in Rp. 1 million and said "In the name of justice, I fine all who are present in this court Rp. 50,000 (US$ 5.50) each as dwellers of this city who have let a child starve until her grandmother has to steal to feed her grandchild. The registrar will now collect the fines from all present."

The court managed to collect Rp 3.5 million (US$ 350) including the fine collected from the plantation manager. After paying the fine  the balance money was handed over to the old lady.

When society is doomed.

When you know that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; 


When you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods but in favours; 


when you see that men get rich more easily by graft rather than by work, 


and your laws no longer protect you against them but protect them against you

......  you know that your society is doomed 

                                      - Ayn Rand ( Author - Atlas Shrugged)

Asking the right questions?

Framing or in other words asking the correct question, is probably more important than the answer itself. A correct question will probably achieve more than an answer, for an answer needs mainly memory where as the question will often require intelligence and analysis.

Why should anyone question in the first place? This is because we most often become what we question.
Rene Descartes said "I think therefore I am."

The questions referred to here are not the general type of conversational ones. The reference here is rather to those questions that have a bearing on our personal lives and work; in fact to our very being and existence.

For our discussion's sake, there are mainly two types of people in this world.
First the reasonable people and secondly the unreasonable people.
The reasonable people don't ask questions and accept the way things are, they adjust themselves to fit into existing structures, systems and environments.
Unreasonable people don't accept the status quo and hence ask questions, they try to change things and the environment to to meet their expectations.
Thus it would be reasonable to state that all development, change or progress can only be brought about by 'unreasonable people', the ones who question.

Not all questioning need be public or loud. Mikhail Gorbachev, had many questions but kept them to himself and a few trusted lieutenants. He became the General Secretary of the Soviet communist party and leader of Soviet Union in March 11th 1985.
Soon after he became leader, he moved with rapidity to introduce real reform, which led to dismantling of the Soviet Union and weakened communism and eventually helped usher in a new world order. The merits of the question are not being discussed, just the implications are.

On the other hand, vociferous questioners are often perceived as trouble-makers, rebels and 'unreasonable people.'
Not all questioners have good or noble intentions and 'churn the pot' merely for purposes of entertainment or to seek attention.

Are they necessarily bad, evil or useless?
On the contrary, by their actions, these loud protestors, demonstrate clearly that they possess energy and some presence of mind. This is not always bad, as an effective person or leader can actually engage such questioners and channelise this energy to useful purposes.

Unfortunately our education system and society frowns upon anyone who raises any questions. The system comprising, homes, educational institutions, job environment is currently spawning generations of people who are more adept at answering questions rather than asking them.

Why then should we decry the rise of bigotry, prejudices, violence and continuing decline of our society?

A Cup of Coffee

A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university professor.

Conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.

Offering his guests coffee, the professor went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of coffee and an assortment of cups porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal, some plain looking, some expensive, some exquisite - telling them to help themselves to hot coffee.

When all the students had a cup of coffee in hand, the professor said: "If you noticed, all the nice looking expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is but normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress. What all of you really wanted was coffee, not the cup, but you consciously went for the best cups and were eyeing each other's cups.

Now if life is coffee, then the jobs, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain Life, but the quality of Life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it."

Enjoy the quality of life which is the coffee. Don't let the cups drive you.

I wish to acknowledge with thanks the contribution of this article to my happy and successful friend  Anoop Desai.