Paragraphs on Alternatives to Democracy!
Definitions of democracy differ widely in content as well as application. The most accepted criteria for a form of government to be termed democratic would be that all persons who are fit to perform the duties of a citizen have a share in the direction of the State and that their will ultimately prevails.
Monarchy represents that form of government where the source of all political authority is to be found in a supreme ruler. The system was most beneficial in the early stages of the development of State. The monarch was able to hold together by his own personal force a society which otherwise might have broken up into many elements.
The Roman kings were elected. The institution later became hereditary. Where absolute monarchy prevailed, the Monarch was the State. Absolute monarchy was best suited for societies where the people were uncivilized and had to be disciplined.
A Monarch may be enlightened like Ashoka, Harsha or Akbar but good government is no longer accepted as a substitute for self-government. Absolute monarchies do not allow liberty and freedom of thought and expression to the subjects. This form of government does not inspire patriotic and social loyalty among its citizens.
A variation of absolute monarchy is constitutional monarchy as prevalent in Britain. The monarch reigns but does not rule. He or she acts like an umpire ensuring that the game of politics is played according to rules.
Aristocracy was originally conceived as the government by the best men of the community. But problems arose with regard to the selection of the best men. The selections came to be a matter of favour. The poor, whatever their merit or intellect remained out of the zone of selection.
Considering the way democracies actually function, one is inclined to believe that democracy too is a variation of aristocracy. The common people have the right to elect their representatives. However when it comes to choosing people who will really govern, Aristocratic considerations come into play.
Cabinet government is in essence Aristocracy. Those who constitute the Ministry are either the intellectual Aristocrats or the chosen few who have the ability to convince their colleagues that they are better suited to govern.
The British have their House of Lords. Twelve members of the Rajya Sabha are nominated. They are supposed to be persons having special knowledge in certain areas. This system of representation smacks of Aristocracy.
The evil inherent in Aristocracy is that those vested with power form a separate interest which may not be congruent to the interests of the common people. Aristocracies resist changes which are likely to deprive them of their privileges. They tend to be static rather than dynamic. Aristocracies are not responsive to the changing needs of the society.
Nazism and Fascism were the two serious critics of democracy before World War II. Democracy was characterized as slow and inefficient. Historical developments that followed are proof enough that dictatorships can at best show results for some time. In the long run they bring disaster to the people who put their faith in dictators. The persecution and killing of Jews under Nazi rule in Germany are events that could not have happened in a democracy.
Dictatorship has no built-in mechanism for ensuring that the dictator acts in public interest and does not use his office for promoting his personal interests. Dictators cannot be removed from office by non-violent means the way Presidents and Prime Ministers change in a democracy.
The policies followed by the dictators have many things in common. They tend to perpetuate the dictatorial rule. Dissent is not tolerated and human rights are violated with immunity. Both Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany followed a policy of hostility towards other states in the international sphere leading to a horrible world war.
Transition from dictatorship to democracy is never smooth. We have before us the example of Nigeria where elections could be held only after the death of Abacha. General Abacha had come to power after a military coup in 1993.
In March 1996, over 600 people were arrested and 60 members of the armed forces were summarily executed for campaigning for an early return to democracy. He died under mysterious circumstances.
After his death, it came to light that he had looted the state treasury and had amassed assets worth some 4 billion dollars in foreign countries. In Rwanda and Burundi around 800,000 people were slaughtered in just three months under the rule of tribal chiefs. Such are the horror stories of military dictatorships.
Africa has a growing band of military rulers who use force to hang on to power. Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe are led by heads of armed rebellions. This has led to political instability perpetuating the economic backwardness of African countries even though many of them have rich natural resources.