All of us know the now famous quote of Abraham Lincoln at the Gettysburg address about democracy “Govt of the people, for the people and by the people”. The circumstances which made it necessary for such a form of governance no longer exist. At that time, monarchs were reigning over the world. And the need of the hour was a system wherein common men (and much later women) could rise and take over the administration of a country. The monarchs, it was felt could become lazy, careless and unconcerned and disconnected about the welfare of society at large and hence the need for one among the common men to take charge of the administration. Almost 150 years later, I think it is time we have a new address, one which proclaims “Govt is the people”. Let me explain.
First of all the system, which we follow these days, called democracy was relevant for the people of the 1800's who were oppressed by the presence of larger than life kings and queens. So, in order to rectify the situation, they decided to elect among themselves a person or set of persons they believed would lead them to greater fortune. This set of persons, called government would function for a few years and elections would be held again at the end of the tenure, because holding elections was time consuming and costly. But, my question is, has this really helped us have a better society ? Are we better off than the people of 1800's ? In many ways yes, we are better off. But do we have better governance ? I do not think so. Look at what one stupid man elected to US presidential office can do to the whole world. That is proof enough that electing one person to lead a nation is not good enough. What is the difference then between chimpanzee society and human society ? Chimpanzee's elect their leaders by physically fighting among themselves. We fight mentally and economically, going by the amount spent usually on elections. This monkey business has to end. We cannot let one man or his team lead us to ruin. And the situation is even more alarming in countries like India, where we cannot even dream that a common and honest man can topple the corrupt and criminal politicians and rectify their mistakes.
So, what can we do ? I suggest a form of governance where “Govt is the people”. I have said this three times without explaining myself, so let me explain. So, in this form of governance, there is no head of the country. There is no one you or me can blame for mistakes. If I think I can formulate a better law than what exists today, I have the freedom to do so. I can post it on a legal forum or similar and if I can muster enough support for the law, it will be passed. If it needs to be modified, it will be modified and then passed as law. So, once I post a law on the forum, even I don't have control over how it would end up eventually. Everything depends truly on the majority opinion. And if you really think about it, if most people don't want to follow the law I suggest, can we really force them to do so ? So, without a centralized government, all the people will be directly involved in the legislation and administration.
Is it feasible ? In my opinion yes. Our world today has shrunk more than we could ever have imagined. Yesterday, my friend in Texas sent me a message on Orkut that their city is hit by a hurricane. I talked to her and found out what's happening in texas as it was happening there. That is what communication can do to the world. Is it not possible then to use this communication infrastructure to govern ourselves ? I believe we can. I also feel that a decentralized and self organized society is the only answer to Plato's question “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”. If there are no custodians, or if everybody is a custodian, what is there to guard against ?
First of all the system, which we follow these days, called democracy was relevant for the people of the 1800's who were oppressed by the presence of larger than life kings and queens. So, in order to rectify the situation, they decided to elect among themselves a person or set of persons they believed would lead them to greater fortune. This set of persons, called government would function for a few years and elections would be held again at the end of the tenure, because holding elections was time consuming and costly. But, my question is, has this really helped us have a better society ? Are we better off than the people of 1800's ? In many ways yes, we are better off. But do we have better governance ? I do not think so. Look at what one stupid man elected to US presidential office can do to the whole world. That is proof enough that electing one person to lead a nation is not good enough. What is the difference then between chimpanzee society and human society ? Chimpanzee's elect their leaders by physically fighting among themselves. We fight mentally and economically, going by the amount spent usually on elections. This monkey business has to end. We cannot let one man or his team lead us to ruin. And the situation is even more alarming in countries like India, where we cannot even dream that a common and honest man can topple the corrupt and criminal politicians and rectify their mistakes.
So, what can we do ? I suggest a form of governance where “Govt is the people”. I have said this three times without explaining myself, so let me explain. So, in this form of governance, there is no head of the country. There is no one you or me can blame for mistakes. If I think I can formulate a better law than what exists today, I have the freedom to do so. I can post it on a legal forum or similar and if I can muster enough support for the law, it will be passed. If it needs to be modified, it will be modified and then passed as law. So, once I post a law on the forum, even I don't have control over how it would end up eventually. Everything depends truly on the majority opinion. And if you really think about it, if most people don't want to follow the law I suggest, can we really force them to do so ? So, without a centralized government, all the people will be directly involved in the legislation and administration.
Is it feasible ? In my opinion yes. Our world today has shrunk more than we could ever have imagined. Yesterday, my friend in Texas sent me a message on Orkut that their city is hit by a hurricane. I talked to her and found out what's happening in texas as it was happening there. That is what communication can do to the world. Is it not possible then to use this communication infrastructure to govern ourselves ? I believe we can. I also feel that a decentralized and self organized society is the only answer to Plato's question “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”. If there are no custodians, or if everybody is a custodian, what is there to guard against ?
An update. I found out recently that what I have mentioned here is known as direct democracy and in limited form is already practised in a few places where regular referendums are held. Damn, why wasn't I born fifty years earlier ??
Comments