When a child is asked "What was/is the greatest Democracy of all time?" without a doubt, that child will reply to that question with a simple, single proper noun, be it the US, England, France, Germany, Japan or what have you. But I argue that, no, these are not the examples of a democracy (rather they are the manifestation of another system, dubbed "polyarchies" by Robert Dahl). In fact, despite their flaws and even misconceptions, I argue that the best democratic system that man has ever created, that best resembles the "ideal" democracy, that crosses the threshold between polyarchy and ideal democracy, was none other than the proto-democratic states of ancient Indian sanghs and ganas.
Am I saying that the ganas of Indian ancient history were more democratic than today's "democracies?" Yes. And the first sort of objection to this argument lies in the broad idea of universal suffrage. See, the reason why one can argue that these "polyarchs" of today are democratic is not because of the idea of universal suffrage exists - any sort of dictator, more likely a stupid one than not but a dictator nevertheless, could enfranchise all of his people. Rather, these polyarchs are democratic because of their ability to expand the franchise, a manifestation of the law of strong equality, the idea of consideration of interests. In other words, it is the idea of consideration that marks democracy NOT the simple existence of such a policy. Were the interests of those on both sides of the gana being considered...yes. They had to. No sort of legislation could pass without such a consent.
Consider the main difference between polyarchies and ganas.
This difference lies in the unique, democracisque characteristic of polygarchies...it is simply the rule of "a many," not the rule of "the people." To draw the difference, between these two terms is worth the length of an entire book, nevermind a few paragraphs. Essentially, though, I argue that the polygarchs are driven by a many, the majority, through various underlying forces: economic (the capitalist ideal), informative (the media), and political (representative democracy, the two party system). The first is incorporated in the second. But to understand this concept a little better, if not fully, I suggest you read my previous articles in relevance to the paradoxical Capitalistic Democracy.
On the total contrary, is the realm of the gana. The ganas were so advanced, first of all, that their bicameral nature very well represents the modern democratic institution of the Anglican Parliament. On one hand were the rajas and on the other were the deliberative assembly, the one consisting of all free men. But, alas, there was one lasting quality of such a system: the idea of direct democracy.
This is the difference between a polygarchy and a democracy...the inclusion of equal voting at the decisive stage, the stage at which policy is made, where legislation is either passed or rejected. This idea is inherent in a few principles, namely the principle of intrinsic equality and the principle of equal consideration, which are assumption of a democracy that are lost in a "representative democracy" or a Republic. But how about Greece? Wasn't it a direct democracy? Sure. But it had a greater danger.
In ancient Greece, best depicted by Sparta, and in ancient Rome, the military was not a part of the civilian-run polity. Of course, it was funded by it and in this way couldn't do anything without its say-so, per se, it had a some very protruding prerogatives that would be scaled down, if not revoked, by a stronger and more crystallized civilian control over the military, specifically a more democratic control. [Note: this in no way is to justify a PRESENCE of a military force] In Sparta, the king Leonidas had to sacrifice himself and his 300 finest to get enough civilian attention for a justified war...crippling the nation of its "head of state." In Rome, the rise of the Empire and the fall of the Republic, which was one of the many reasons to the final fall of Rome, was led on by this weak, if any, civilian control over the military. IF A MILITARY IS NECESSARY, IT MUST BE RUN BY A DEMOCRATICALLY RUN SYSTEM.
As was the case with the ganas. The existence of a bicameral legislature, a rather inaccurate description that conjures up connotations that fail to exist within the gana, a balance of powers was supplied: the rajas checked the civilian's propositions as did the civilians in proposals cast by the rajas.
This beautiful hybrid of direct democracy and modern democratic theory, the gana is an ideal on earthly grounds that is by far the closest thing man has ever gotten to ideal democracy and, the best part: Modern advanced democracy, specically America, is not too behind, ff only a citizen-imposed, not representative-run, legislative system were enacted in which case, Americans would feel as if the legislative process, which they feel the regular citizen has no say in and therefore does not participate in, was more conditioned to the citizen, would hopefully lead to greater numbers in "voting" turnouts. Democracy would finally come to America. CHANGE WOULD FINALLY COME TO AMERICA, to the WORLD.
Am I saying that the ganas of Indian ancient history were more democratic than today's "democracies?" Yes. And the first sort of objection to this argument lies in the broad idea of universal suffrage. See, the reason why one can argue that these "polyarchs" of today are democratic is not because of the idea of universal suffrage exists - any sort of dictator, more likely a stupid one than not but a dictator nevertheless, could enfranchise all of his people. Rather, these polyarchs are democratic because of their ability to expand the franchise, a manifestation of the law of strong equality, the idea of consideration of interests. In other words, it is the idea of consideration that marks democracy NOT the simple existence of such a policy. Were the interests of those on both sides of the gana being considered...yes. They had to. No sort of legislation could pass without such a consent.
Consider the main difference between polyarchies and ganas.
This difference lies in the unique, democracisque characteristic of polygarchies...it is simply the rule of "a many," not the rule of "the people." To draw the difference, between these two terms is worth the length of an entire book, nevermind a few paragraphs. Essentially, though, I argue that the polygarchs are driven by a many, the majority, through various underlying forces: economic (the capitalist ideal), informative (the media), and political (representative democracy, the two party system). The first is incorporated in the second. But to understand this concept a little better, if not fully, I suggest you read my previous articles in relevance to the paradoxical Capitalistic Democracy.
On the total contrary, is the realm of the gana. The ganas were so advanced, first of all, that their bicameral nature very well represents the modern democratic institution of the Anglican Parliament. On one hand were the rajas and on the other were the deliberative assembly, the one consisting of all free men. But, alas, there was one lasting quality of such a system: the idea of direct democracy.
This is the difference between a polygarchy and a democracy...the inclusion of equal voting at the decisive stage, the stage at which policy is made, where legislation is either passed or rejected. This idea is inherent in a few principles, namely the principle of intrinsic equality and the principle of equal consideration, which are assumption of a democracy that are lost in a "representative democracy" or a Republic. But how about Greece? Wasn't it a direct democracy? Sure. But it had a greater danger.
In ancient Greece, best depicted by Sparta, and in ancient Rome, the military was not a part of the civilian-run polity. Of course, it was funded by it and in this way couldn't do anything without its say-so, per se, it had a some very protruding prerogatives that would be scaled down, if not revoked, by a stronger and more crystallized civilian control over the military, specifically a more democratic control. [Note: this in no way is to justify a PRESENCE of a military force] In Sparta, the king Leonidas had to sacrifice himself and his 300 finest to get enough civilian attention for a justified war...crippling the nation of its "head of state." In Rome, the rise of the Empire and the fall of the Republic, which was one of the many reasons to the final fall of Rome, was led on by this weak, if any, civilian control over the military. IF A MILITARY IS NECESSARY, IT MUST BE RUN BY A DEMOCRATICALLY RUN SYSTEM.
As was the case with the ganas. The existence of a bicameral legislature, a rather inaccurate description that conjures up connotations that fail to exist within the gana, a balance of powers was supplied: the rajas checked the civilian's propositions as did the civilians in proposals cast by the rajas.
This beautiful hybrid of direct democracy and modern democratic theory, the gana is an ideal on earthly grounds that is by far the closest thing man has ever gotten to ideal democracy and, the best part: Modern advanced democracy, specically America, is not too behind, ff only a citizen-imposed, not representative-run, legislative system were enacted in which case, Americans would feel as if the legislative process, which they feel the regular citizen has no say in and therefore does not participate in, was more conditioned to the citizen, would hopefully lead to greater numbers in "voting" turnouts. Democracy would finally come to America. CHANGE WOULD FINALLY COME TO AMERICA, to the WORLD.
No comments:
Post a Comment