Global Watchman on the lookout


When we look into last century especially 1945 onwards, we can easily notice that it has been a century of wars, social unrest and failed governments. Many countries around the world have gone through a number of changes. Many countries which were occupied by British Empire, fought and won their independence in post-World War 2 era. India won its freedom in 1947, so did Pakistan same year, Egypt, Thailand, numerous African countries and many others followed soon. All countries previously ruled by Britain adopted democratic political system. Everyone equated democracy with freedom in those years. This was mainly due to the fact that many countries in the world were suffering from communist dictatorship. Various dictators of that era were ruthless tyrants who were responsible for millions of deaths of their civilians. So in that era people were terrified of dictatorships.  

But reality was that it was communism which was responsible for many of the ruthless dictatorships all over the world. Russia was being strangled to death by Joseph Stalin. China was suffering from the rule of Mao Zedong. Similarly North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam and Cuba were also suffering under ruthless communist regimes. People around the world were watching horrifying scenes unveiled in these communist countries. Thus most of the countries around the world considered that only democracy was a viable mode of governance because it gave the people of a nation power to choose their own leaders. It is also worth mentioning that democracy was also promoted as a condition for freedom by Colonial Empires. One such colony of Britain which became the first democratic nation of the world was United States of America. There is a misconception about British Empire that they opposed the concept of democracy, this is not true at all. All historical records point to the fact that concept of democracy was first introduced by British philosophers and later on it was widely used by British Empire as a nonnegotiable condition for freedom of British Colonies. But why would a colonial power like Britain would promote the concept of democracy, which results in empowerment of civilians. Answer to this question could only be found if we study the basic concept of democracy.
If ask anybody the meaning of democracy they would probably reply that a mode of government which is chosen by the citizens. Some others might define democracy as a form of governance in which citizens are free to choose their representatives for the government. It was widely perceived that in a democratic government the ultimate power of freedom rested in hands of civilians.  People were free to vote for whoever they deemed capable of handling governmental affairs and it was this freedom of choice that attracted people towards the concept of democracy. To be defined in few words the democracy is a government made of the people, by the people and for the people. 

In terms of sociology democracy encompasses social, religious, cultural, ethnic and racial equality, justice, liberty and fraternity. In an ideal democracy everyone enjoys equal rights, governed by equal laws, enjoy equal social status and equally contributes in development of the republic. But pure and ideal democracies are rarely seen. Most of the times some aspects of other political philosophies were intertwined with democracy to form a hybrid mode of governance. Ancient Roman Empire is considered the oldest instance of a democratic governance. Some others forms of governance systems are Monarchy which means either a king or queen belonging to the royal family governs the nation, Oligarchy means a group of individuals rule over the country and Anarchy which means there is no central ruling entity and every individual governs its own life affairs Dictatorships fall into the category of Communist Tyranny where a single person forcefully seizes control of entire nation usually with strong military support. Dictatorships usually result in oppression of civilians and extremely violent policies against opposing organizations.

Democracy appears to be the most fair and ideal political philosophy then why most of the democracies around the world today are struggling and are on the verge of collapse? Why has this system failed? Did this system ever worked or were we just fooled into believing that it worked?

What political analyst and political scientists found out was that democracy could never have worked in present global dynamics. The system is made for an unrealistic purist society whose every member is an embodiment of honesty, ethics and social responsibility. We can hardly denote these qualities to our politicians or for that matter to any society. So the democratic process was bound to fail in fact it was designed to fail. The reason for this is that democracy results in concentration of political and social power in hands of elite leadership. This centralized concentration of power creates an unfair advantage for the ruling party or leadership. This would have been all well and good if the chosen leader was as honest, ethical and divine as Jesus. In this case Jesus won’t have been influenced or coerced easily. But as we know this is never the case hence the chosen leader is very susceptible to external pressure, influence and coercion. And knowing how greedy we humans are, the chosen leader could easily be influenced by means of financial and social incentives. And as we know how opaque inner workings of any government can be to a civilian, so there always remains a possibility that the chosen leader could abuse his authority and influence to fulfil the hidden agenda of this external entity. And this has happened many times in history where the chosen leader did undermined the interest of public for achievement of goals of external influential entity. The disproportionate distribution of power in a democracy is the root cause for corruption and unethical abusive utilization of power.

Centralized concentration of power leaves a huge possibility of our leaders to be influenced and coerced by external forces, which could further result in these external forces seizing absolute control of every aspect of our government. I think that this ultimate shift of control was the absolute objective of British Monarchy behind their efforts of spreading democratic philosophy all over the world. By the end of Second World War, Britain was in a weakened state with majority of its infrastructure and defense forces desolated. And during this turbulent period, the spark of British exploitation sparked full fledge revolution for freedom in many British colonies. Another reason that contributed in contempt for British rule was the unwillingness of Britain to grant independence to some colonies whom they had promised to do so in return for support of colonies for Britain in Second World War. Weakened and vulnerable state of Britain rendered it unable to forcefully suppress the revolts in several British Colonies. 

British Monarchs formulated a brilliant plan by which they could continue to rule over these colonies even after granting them independence. And this brilliant plan was the political philosophy of democracy. Britain started granting independence to many of its colonies but only on condition for adoption of a democratic political system. Britishers deceived colonies into believing that for governing a prosperous, peaceful and stable nation, democracy is the only way forward. And when they granted independence to many of its colonies, they placed their confidants and supporters in powerful positions in the new independent governments. This meant that Britain still had significant control over the colonies even though technically colonies were now independent states. British knew that it will be much easier to control a single most powerful individual rather than controlling whole committee of individuals who wield equal amount of power. Hence democracy became a modern tool of control over former colonies for British Monarchy.

And even to this day British monarchy enjoys a great deal of influence on governments of many of its former colonies. This includes most of the commonwealth nations like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and numerous others. Even after a century of independence, Queen Elizabeth II is still the current reigning sovereign of Australia. She is still considered the Queen of Australia under Australian Monarchy. So now we know what the true purpose of democracy was and it’s also becomes quite obvious that why so many democratic countries all over the world are struggling today like America, Britain, Greece and Spain. Sole reason for the formulation and emergence of democracy was a means for continuous manipulation of these former colonies by British Monarchy and International Banking Cartel.

So if democracy is a failed system, then what kind of political philosophy can replace it? History has taught us that Monarch and Oligarch systems are even worse than democracy. During the last century the most lives lost during peace time have occurred under dictatorial, monarchical and oligarchical regimes. These acts of genocides committed by regimes on their own civilian population are termed as Democide. Another shocking fact is that number of lives lost in democides is more than causalities of all wars combined. Political philosophy that has been responsible for worst Democides in recent history is Communism. So it is quite obvious that both monarchical and oligarchical mode of governance are unpractical and inefficient options. Only form of governance that has proved successful in the past is anarchism. Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions which further includes non-hierarchical free associations. 

Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, some argue that anarchism supports ideology of opposing authority or hierarchical organizations in the conduct of human relation and social functions.  

As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive, Anarchical school of thought differs fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualistic anarchism or similar dual classifications. 

Anarchism is often termed as a radical left-wing ideology by proponents of democracy. This is because much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretation of collectivism, syndicalism, mutual-ism or participatory economics.

Hence basic meaning of Anarchism is a stateless non-centralized society which doesn’t segregates its citizens according to a rigid hierarchical structure. 

Every single individual is of equal status and freely participates in socioeconomic projects. 

Anarchism does not hold a centralized fixed doctrine to govern and limit the actions of individuals in society. Rather anarchism supports a free flow of artistic, cultural and social philosophies. 

Anarchism supports an anti-authoritarian, collectivist and participatory ideology of co-existence. And this is the only choice we are left with for a positive and prosperous future.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s