“Might is Right," the proverb goes. It
was true then(when the proverb was invented), and it is true till date. From
then till now, only the way of attaining might has changed and nothing else.
A mighty Emperor one would be in the
past if he ruled a vast area of land with the help of his warlords and terror
of weapon. He would do anything to remain in the power. He would be worshiped; people would bow their heads in front of him. Following his orders
would be a compulsion; if not you might be killed in no time. All his foolish
wishes had to be fulfilled; after all he had the might and he was the right. On
this regard, I remember the stories of Akbar and Birbal. Akbar was a wise king,
but like every other kings he had pride of his might and made his subjects do
whatever he wished. Birbal, the wise often stopped him from doing so but he too used to fall in dilemma when the king used to order things like bull’s milk and building castle in the air. The stories of Akbar and Birbal may not be actual histories. A historical example of Surendra and Junge may be relevant here. Because Junge(Jung Bahadur Rana-Junge was what Surendra
called him!) wanted to gain powers taking the advantage of perssuation over
Surendra, he jumped into Trishuli with a horse, and jumped into a dry well . (It
is also said that he jumped off the top of Dharahara with an umbrella!) Later
on, when he gained his might what he did to Surendra and his children is a
bitter part of history: even innocent people suffered his tyranny.
The etymology of the word “Democracy” leads us to the “rule of the people” in Greek. Democracy was practiced
in Athens in the ancient times which spread to Europe with varying forms.
Rome and Sparta had their own type of democracy but the main essence was that
they worked in unison to the thoughts of people called citizens. To say that they followed modern democratic norms would be a mistake.
The “citizens” were originally those who dwelt in the city minus the women, the
slaves and the tradesmen. What we get as citizens were the rich men called
‘elites’. So, when we talk of democracy, aristocracy automatically comes into
the scene.
In modern times, democracy and
aristocracy(the rule of the elites) are used antonymously. This is the illusion
that people have been suffering from in the developing and under-developed
countries. The definition of citizen has changed and all the adults democratically cast
votes to their representatives but they are ruled under aristocracy. In almost all the countries following democracy, one can become candidate in the elections easily
but the winner is, in most of the cases, one who can spend money—actually
distribute money among the people. Political parties that have strong support
of the industrialists and capitalists usually win the elections. It is because
the aid from the rich-class people can be used in campaigns to create
vote-banks. Communists call this capitalism, I call this aristodemocracy—the
democracy in which the elites are a little higher in status than the people of
other economic classes. I am not sure if such a rule exists in the developed
countries but Sir Charles Waldstein had given the term “aristodemocracy” in his
book of the same name. However, the book explains vastly on the military
strategies required to establish peace in the world. (The ideas seem contrasting, don't they?)
The sixteenth US President Abraham
Lincoln said, “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for
the people.” The people elect their representatives and expect that the popular
needs are fulfilled through them. When the representatives of people like
parliamentarians are elected by the people on the ground of their abilities, it
is certain that they will do something for the development of at least their
constituency. But if they are elected by the favor of elites, the “people’s
representatives” are enslaved; resulting increased corruption, class-conflict
and anarchy.
In democratic countries, mightier are
those who get popular votes off their abilities; they gain majority and they
are the tyrants over minorities. In aristodemocratic countries, the mightier
are those who get popular votes with the help of the rich-class; the minority
group rules the majority group taking advantage over their inability to make apt
decisions and choices. This should be impossible according to the modern
democratic norms but its going on here, on the land from which I am writing
this essay.
How can aristodemocracy be defeated? I
am not sure there is an absolute answer to this question. Which place is there
which does not have the gap between the haves and the have-nots? You might
think of the USA, Obama’s country at an instant but the depictions of slum-like
places in New York(Manhattan?) in movies and accounts of many tourists have
showed that poor are always the poor. Another country that clicks into
everyone’s mind is the UK, the kingdom of Queen Elizabeth, but I have heard a
personal account of the poors’ life in slums of England from a young
Bangla-originated Englishman, Sabirul Islam. There is always a great possibility that monetary resources are exploited by the election candidates. Therefore, he only way of turning
over aristodemocracy is to increase the
political awareness among people or make it clear that the winner is the one who can use money to their advantage.
If we want the citizens to be aware, when citizens vote for their representatives,
they should be careful that the candidate is not under the influence of
aristocrats and anarchists. Mass media
and social media can be useful in raising awareness among the ordinary people
and in helping them select the correct representatives. But the most essential need is that the leaders should be loyal to all the citizens; not only to the
elite-class but also to the poor class.
