Monarchial Democracy

The human society differs from place to place, from time to time. The society of Bharat differs from the society of America. The society of America differs from Africa. Because of this very reason one doubt or say, a question arises in my mind and I think it is very reasonable. The question is “When we have different kinds of society and different kinds of people; how one form of governance can can be beneficial for every society?” We cannot universalize one form of governance for every society but I see that the great political thinkers of present or the contemporary world talks about one system of governance for every society and i.e. “Democracy”. The countries, which do not have democracy, we regard them as backward, ridiculous, and stupid. Why so? When geographical boundaries are different, culture is different, people are different, clothing style is different, and food habit is different than how a system of governance can be same? I firmly believe that every country can have a different kind of structure of governance according to their characteristics. The world shall not force any country to have a democratic structure. The so-called protectors of democracy and human rights i.e. the NATO countries cannot use force or support lawbreakers to have a democratic structure as we have seen recently in the cases of Iraq, Libya etc.

The four kinds of system of governance we can easily see around us. They are- 1) Democracy 2) Dictatorship 3) Monarchy & 4) Constitutional Monarchy. Now first let us talk at about Democracy. The best example would be Bharat i.e. India the biggest democracy in world or America, France etc. what happens in these countries? Here people mandate runs the country that means the rulers are elected by people and ideologically they should be responsible to people but we can see that they are responsible to their political group, their people, and god know whom. In Democratic setup, every one is intellectual and born with the qualities of being ruler. Any tom dick and harry can rule the country. However, how much is this beneficial? When lots of mind work together they say it will produce best result but do we actually have best results. If it had been then there would not have been two world wars. Moreover, when talk about India; India would have been one of the super powers in world until now having such a large human power and resources. Take any policy or welfare scheme started by govt. of India has its flaws. None of them was as successful as expected except Pulse polio Programme. This PPP was successful because it was the need of every citizen and having Amitabh Bacchan as brand ambassador. Even the best of the political philosophers of early time have disregarded Democratic structure. Plato, Aristotle, Chankya every one.  Now second that is Dictatorship. I do not think I need to talk more on this. We all know that it is one of the worst forms of government and despotism is there, anarchy is there and people are crushed. However, we have exceptions like Fidel Castro who was supported by his citizens. Thirdly, we have Monarchy. Now a days we hardly see any monarchical state. Earlier Bhutan or Nepal was having Monarch but now they are also democrat. What were the features of monarchy? People, I have met who get confused with despotism as the basic element of Monarchy. We have examples were Monarch worked for the welfare of people and he was much more responsible to the people than the today’s Democrats. Yes, it has one problem of hereditary in nature. However, the Philosophers never ever supported hereditary system. Now the Last is Constitutional Monarchy. It is no different from Democracy. The only difference is that every Law has to be assented by Monarch as we see in the case of U.K.

Bharat i.e. India has democratic setup of government. However, even we hear by people that Bharat needs a dictator or a monarch but what I feel is that India needs ‘MONARCHIAL DEMOCRACY’. I didn’t know if anybody has talked about this or not but this thought came in my mind and I am trying to elaborate it. In my opinion, democracy can be successful at a smaller scale. We often see in villages that a particular community has democratic setup, which is coming from thousands of years. We can have such a democratic setup at different levels but at the top, it should be monarch. Every democratic structure in its form should have its own governance, judicial system and executive.  But at every structure there should be one higher democratic setup. For ex. we can have local self-organized government then Janpads then province and then whole Nation and at the top monarch. Monarch should be the lawmaker but if some law is not beneficial for a local government, they can reject it too.  Now every local government should send a representative for monarch and then there will be election for that so that one representative should come out from each province and from then all the representative should fight election i.e. if there are 28 province 28 candidates have to fight election and the one who will get majority is not going to become monarch rather until one gets 75% of votes of whole country he will not be elected for being monarch. Once elected he should be trained for at least 5 years about governance, truth, DHARM and self-liberation. It means that age should be fixed for Monarch yes one cannot be monarch after 75 years of age. If Natural calamity happens and monarch dies then till the process of election of new monarch is not completed the one who stood second in the election should keep the post and he is not liable to change any rule made by the last monarch and he should look after all matters. However, if the temporary care taker monarch does not leave the post after the new monarch has elected then his head should be either chopped-off or he should be fried in a bucket of hot oil or his body should be cut into pieces. The same punishment shall be there for one who does not leave the post after completing his 75 years of age. Monarch can make laws for everyone but his conduct should be regulated by Dharm and that is to be decided by a group of Dhramshastris selected by people. That means every local self-organized govt. shall send one dharmshastri. In this manner, every member of the country will have a say in the country. Monarch should be liable for all the foreign relations and national security and the national govt. should support him in the matters of governance.

This is just a introduction of what I feel about the best system of governance that can be structured in the country like Bharat which has so much of diversity. I hope you all liked this article and give comments on this.
“I have a copyright over these blog auricles”

                                      Thank You!