On anarchy

It is not very often in a man’s life or in the lifespan of a nation or civilization that a man or a nation decides that it is better off in servitude to a power than be independent and free. Yet for the most of the recorded history of man, there have been civilizations not in rarity but as a norm who have served under some or other power. This power when not another civilization has been divine or worse self-imposed. It is the most misanthropic of all views that some part of every society or some societies in every epoch are incapable of self-rule. The extent of this misanthropy is when an individual in a society is considered to be too weak for existence that a higher authority is needed to rule over him. This higher authority has historically been lords, dukes, barons, kings and above all God himself. Yet even the complete annihilation of aristocracy, divine rule and monarchy in countries has not completely liberated man from subordination. He now is subject to a government elected by his fellow country-men. Although he has some control over the government, he continues to be subject to laws of the land that he doesn’t directly approve of. His disapproval can be expressed only occasionally and doesn’t necessarily help him overcome subordination. For even when some laws may be shaped his franchise, there will always be laws that he will never approve of. This is the case with every single man in the country including the representatives who play a more active role in shaping the society. So, subordination has not disappeared from the face of earth as visionaries imagined but has compounded and disguised itself in the form of the Nation-state. For a man, who chooses not to follow the laws of the state, becomes an outlaw punished for not confirming to a set of laws he neither made nor can unmake. He is bound by, as many philosophers have liked to call it, a social contract. This contract is not voluntary but imposed. An individual doesn’t ‘sign’ a contract with the state, the state signs a contact on his behalf. He has no option but to accept a contract that has been signed without his consent. He is condemned by the state to be its ‘citizen’ and he loses all his individuality for the sake of the state. He is now forced to conform to laws he doesn’t believe in, expected to pay taxes that don’t benefit him and serve the nation through his talents. His service is never repaid. In return for his labor, he gets to become a servant of the state. How different is this then for serfdom which democracy hoped to replace? True liberation cannot come from changing the style of government; it comes from the elimination of government. Only with the elimination of governments can an individual truly realize his potential. The argument that men work best when they are enslaved is absurd because men who work not from the fear of punishment but for the love of their profession work better and in greater harmony with others in their profession and with those in other professions. In a stateless society, men get their fruits according to their labor, and not according to their conformity. Men then work to be as useful to the society so as to gain maximum from it and each man thinking in the same manner, provides more goods for the society than ever achievable under the most provident government. The problems of the society are solved by men within it and not above it and since no man are detached from the society and placed at a pedestal higher than rest as it is so common in our times, the men who govern are the men who are governed and by that principle will govern benevolently to be governed with benevolence. This is not the case with governments who deriving power from the society cease to be a part of the society and hence work only for their benefit and not for that of the society. Anarchy is the brainchild of nature and because it needn’t be invented by any man is generally free of prejudice. All species in this planet, although may work in unison, have never formed nay visible government or hierarchy. This is how nature works. It doesn’t need any support but what it has been naturally given to it by evolution. Man too doesn’t require a government. His vices arise not out of lack of conformity but out of too much authority which he seeks to overthrow. Societies are created from need, governments from greed. The greed of a few men has subjected a majority to a life of subordination. Man doesn’t get security from having a government but rather loses all security he had hitherto possessed. He is constantly under the fear of the government. Man’s life doesn’t improve because of the government but only reduces in quality. His life now becomes one of many lives in the state and loses all its value. He becomes a mere ‘number’ in the state. His efforts are used to exploit him. His tax-money is used to control his actions. He pays to be enslaved. And worst of all, he can neither evade tax payment nor government control without punishment. He is a slave of the state. 

Deciphering the Political Trinity

When Aristotle wrote in his book "Politics" that there are three types of good government- Royalty, Aristocracy and Constitutional Government and three bad-the perverted forms of the aforementioned governments where royalty slips into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy and constitutional government into democracy. It was Machiavelli writing nearly two millenia later, reinstated this in his discourses. Furthermore he added, that the ideal government was a combination of the three good forms of government-monarchy, aristocracy and democracy ( in Machiavellian terms- 'democracy' refers to constitutional government). When governments are ranked according to their longevity, the ones who rule the apex are those, Machiavelli concluded, a healthy combination of the three governments. From Sparta to Rome in the ancient times to the United States today, the strongest countries never mind strong democracies, the greatest powers had a fair mix of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy in them. It is a fair conclusion then to make that, any future government must have all aforementioned  forms of government to sustain itself and thrive. But a deeper understanding or even a slight thought to it will reveal that the three forms of government have only small differences which can be bridged. A government created by this form will be stronger than the one that blindly adopts the the three governments. No country that has hitherto existed has had such a government. Even Rome had and United States has what is but a superficial culmination of the three forms of government. In essence, monarchy  just refers to one ruler and isn't necessarily hereditary. So the American Presidency would qualify amply as monarchical. Aristocracy is many rulers-by definition wise men who are educated in public affairs and that of administration whilst a constitutional government is a representative body duly elected by the people of the state. The advantage of a monarchy is stability. An individual is less likely to argue and fight with himself than a body politic and so important matters are not deferred by democratic tradition. An aristocracy puts merit over popularity and hence allows talented men to rule the country as opposed to just popular men. This prevents as Jefferson put it "mobocracy of the cruelest nature". It also protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority which being more populous than nobility or kingship can cause greater harm and injustice. Democracy as we so popularly know in today's age, has its own advantages of responsibility and protection against dissolution into authoritarian rule. In an educated society where the electorate is sufficiently literate not just in linguistics and sciences but also in civics and public life, the people will elect only men whom it feels will be best suited to serve the state. By this virtue, they will elect as it may seem to them, one man, a group of men or a constitutional body that is capable of administration. Monarchy will not be absolute, as men to this high power are chosen by an informed body which when it finds it appropriate may remove him. An aristocracy too will descend into a group of over-nourished lazy men because one, the country is educated and two because these men are themselves from the public elevated to their current positions by their virtue and intelligence, will try to protect themselves from vices of greed and ignorance which will disqualify them to their jobs. A constitutional government to in the same manner will be a responsible body and it will also be stable because the people who elect them are aware of the ills of excessive responsibility that nurtures uncertainty and will accordingly empower a particular group or one man or the entire body politic in such manner that it may carry on its duties without the fear of sudden absolution.

The Prince and the Republic

the two profoundest books I've read have really similar although completely opposite titles- Plato's The Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince. The argument by many historians and academics is that both books encouraged Fascism and totalitarianism. While the argument that THE PRINCE is PROTOFASCIST may have some credence, there is incredible evidence to prove that THE REPUBLIC is clearly NOT PROTOFASCIST. With a name like "THE REPUBLIC", it is ironic that many people actually consider it to be a book that is philosophically supportive of tyranny. For Plato although favored philosophical rule, he didn't support any form of Greek-Nazism. The book, the Republic is hence not a greek version of THE PRINCE written many centuries earlier but a different kind of book altogether. The book may not have the same present day usage as the Prince, because unlike the Prince, the Republic is a bit unreal and idealistic. Yet we have a lot to learn from it. The book is not only a source of Greek literature but also a thesis on how to train our politicians. Plato through socratic dialogue envisions a republic whose rulers will have the philosphical thirst for knowledge and education rightly suited for the purpose of governance. We may argue that such philosphical kingdoms is anithetical to the concept of democracy, but in Plato's time the concept of direct democracy wasn't working. Even Tyrannies weren't. A compromise was needed and Plato provided it. He did so with many assumptions and presuppositions which even he couldn't defend well enough in his book. The Republic hence is a book philosphical different from THE PRINCE. And while it is true that Machiavelli was inspired by Pluto, their respective ideas for governments were totally different and their need to imagine such governments even more different!

Lame-duck Politics

Lame-duck sessions are usually free of politics. This is the time when there are no big legislations or controversies that spur up political vibes. This is the time when people are the least cynical about the congress. The feel sorry for the exiting congress and happy for the newly elected one. But this year everything is different. More bills of extraordinary importance are springing up every now and then in the lame duck period. The nuclear arms treaty bill and the unemployment benefits extension bill, not to mention the debates over the Bush-era tax cuts and the budget defecit. It seems that the lame duck period is probably more exciting than the election campaign itself. When John Boehner said "Politics is OVER", he was either sarcastic or too optimistic. It seems that the duel has just began. While the two parties fight over legislations in a critical period of transformation, the lives of millions not just in America but around the world hangs on a loose thread.

Statesman + Politician = President

I was watching the movie "Commanding Heights" the other day and in one part, Dick Cheney quotes Nixon's citation of Nikita Khrushchev's famous quote, "To be a great statesman, you have to be a great politician someday". Drawing allusions to President Obama's present situation,  one can conclude that Obama is a great statesman but a very mediocre politician. Unfortunately the wold of realpolitik demands that every President be a figure who has within him equal proportions of statesmanship and street-smartness. His charisma is undoubtedly unchallenged in modern history and his vision is comparable in magnitude only to FDR and the new deal. Yet in popularity ratings he probably shares the rank with George W Bush. Instead of matching the greatness of people like Kennedy and FDR and Lincoln, Obama is underachieveing. When elected in 2008, People believed he had the charisma of Kennedy, the spirit and humility of Lincoln, the vision of FDR and the facet of every great Chief Executive who had ever ruled in history. But what many Political scientists and average Americans in 2008 failed to notice is that President Obama wasn't half as good as politician as he was in character, spirit and vision. His weakness was finally shown in the most democractic way possible. On the night of the 2nd of November, 2010, when votes were being counted, the world watched the greatest statesman losing control of his congress. He has lost his support but Obama still has the will and the character to drive him on. But those two won't suffice in the political world Obama inhabits. He needs to be an effective politican. He must not crawl to the Centre but stick to the left and attack the republicans in the same way as they did to him. In 1996, Clinton got reelected with a mixture of shrewdness and compromise but in 2012 Obama will need shrewdness and lots of them along with sturdity and unwillingness to compromise. Obama became the President on the call for compromise, ironically he will need to shed this very compromising attitude and fight his tooth out to remain teh President. But maybe we haven't seen the Obama he will become- FDR changed, Clinton changed, Lincoln transformed, every great President eventually changed himself. For Obama who's nickname is "change", this shouldn't be hard!

Give veto a chance, Mr. Obama

The democrats have lost the midterm election ( republicans haven't won it). It's not because of their incompetence or mismanagement but because of their failure effectively communication to The American People. Now that the campaign politics is over, it is time for looking beyond. The President has to work with a Republican house. He has two options- one, veto and two, cooperate. For Obama, the ambassador of bipartisanship in DC, cooperation would be the better option. However, considering the political scenario, Obama must accustom himself to the dark reality of Politics is that cooperation never works. He must use one thing guaranteed to him by the constitution he taught students back in his days as a lecturer. The President, can with power vested in him as the chief executive, veto ( reshuffling vote to indicate the opposite) any legislation deemed un-American. He can therefore ensure that his work in the last two years can be redeemed by his role in the next two years. He must block stupid resolutions to favor the rich, and any legislation aimed at undoing his dream for a cleaner and more peaceful world. If he does that and his campaign blames the Republicans ffor not doing enough once in power, the democrats will not only regain the Congress but also the Presidency. As of now, I haven't been able to spot a single Republican capable of dethroning the President from his seat. And so long as this remains true, Obama must use his executive power to stay in power. Once re-elected, without fear of losing or having to work towards re-election, he will have time and the requisite political capital to create a greener, better America.

The Home-Strech

In less than 40 hours, the first voters will queue up in New Hampshire and New York and touch their ballot screens either the red way or the blue way. In less than two days, Obama will know whether his domestic policies, healthcare and economy have all worked. He will know whether his presidency for the next two years is going to be hard or very hard( it won't be easy for sure). There is little doubt in the fact that republicans will wrestle the house from the democrats and there is almost similar confidence that the democrats will keep the senate albiet with lesser seats. Their hopes of a filibuster-proof Senate and the house is diminishing by the day. Their progressive policies of energy and education reform are in shambles. As we enter the home strech of this elections, the final path, we know that the republicans who looked to reign supreme o'er the lands in the past and failed are now closer than ever to doing so. That the hope that galvanized Americans to come and vote democrat has turned into hopelessness for the democrats. From the pinnacle of their political stage two years ago, when it seemed that for the first time after FDR, democrats were closer than ever to a landslide, democrats are in the abyss looking for hope in place of despair. I am a democrat and for many days I've been saying that democrats can come back, yes they can. But now that hope seems to have blown away. But maybe, maybe just like 1994 became 2006 one day, 2010 will become the impetus for a future electoral triumph. Or maybe republicans will be able to change their party and their picture and paint a new GOP and new America and maybe then we'll no longer look at them with scorn. The answer will not come in 2 days, but the foundation for that answer will be laid in next 48 hours.