It is undeniable that a true government is by the people, for the people and of the people. Even in the jungle, where a king lion feasts on its subjects, it must live by certain rules. Even an all-powerful king cannot go on a chaotic and rampant path; He will face a certain death by the collaboration of the people. But this too is the truth that even at the height of the civilization, it is not only impractical but impossible to have the vote of every individual for every act. A political system must be in place that takes all the decisions for the crowd; While the individuals carry on their personal routines. The members of the governing body receive salaries to volunteer for the greater good. And they enjoy royal privileges for the personal sacrifices and the risks involved.

While nature herself writes the system in stone so far. The show of real intelligence is when we design the process by which we chose and replace the political systems. There are three basic ways in which we can do this.


Dictatorship is a far-right system where one person oversees everything. Predominant leadership and power in the system choses the dictator. The constitution is painfully strict for the people and the ruler uses brute force to implement it. The privileges to the dictator are extravagant. The people live as they chose but only as far as the dictator allows. They have no say in the national affairs. The dictator directly oversees the secretariat and it has no freedom in actions, but as nominal advisory. The upside of this system is that the people are least concerned about the national affairs; And can fully focus in personal endeavors. If a dictator is honest, it will result to be the best political system in the world.


But the problem arises when the dictator is dishonest or corrupt, and when the rule needs to change. The replacement of the ruler is far difficult and messy in this system. The dictator being the sole owner of all resources and powers cannot be replaced without violent rebellions, ending in the loss of several innocent lives and if successful, killing of the ruler himself. Fear of this outcome forces the next dictator to implement even more control on the public, and the system slowly reaches to the level of prison and slavery.


The opposite of dictatorship is democracy. In this political system, the people are the owners of the nation. Votes choose the government, and the governing body is only a representative of the people. People highly value the phrase ‘rule of law’, meaning the chair holds the power, but the person does not. The upside to this system is that the people are directly in power, so the majority always wins. This enables the nation to proceed on the path of least resistance. (It should be noted though that the path of least resistance is not always the right path. Philosophically speaking, if there is no resistance in the conductor, there would be no light or heat.) The changes in the system and the rebellions are often peaceful and nonviolent.


The downside to this system is as apparent as ‘breath’ to ‘consciousness’ or as ‘value’ to the ‘ego’. I don’t think that I can find anyone who can challenge the thought that at any time, the population of the truly intelligent and wise people is less than who are not. In such a scenario, the idiots suppress the wise minority, and the greater good becomes vulnerable. Also, a majority of fools is capable of passing a law that harms themselves in the end. And even if the population is literate, the phrase, “Too many cooks spoil the broth” materializes in this system.

But the real sins come to play in this political system because of the hanging swords of replacements over the rulers. This system makes it mandatory for the rulers to be judged every five years; So, they invest a huge amount of time and resources in trying to retain the power, instead of running the nation. This also creates places for the worst type of corruption. Intra national alliances divide the country. Greedy corporations and opportunists feed off the resources and taxes of the hardworking people. This system also kills the loyalty of subjects for the rulers and vice versa. Ultimately it gives birth to a continuous and endless fight of the people against their own governments. And soon enough we would find that democracy has turned into anarchy.


Before I say anything about monarchy, I must mention that historically, majority of the monarchies that we have seen on known were not true to their definition. They were all close to either dictatorship, or an unlawful marriage between dictatorship and the corrupt form of democracy. (For Hindi and Sanskrit fans, the phrase, “unlawful marriage” could be ‘Nir-Sandhi-Yukt-Sanyog’.) If anyone is interested in reading, they can read the true meaning of monarchy in Mahaabhaarat’s ‘Shaanti Parva’.

The Ideal Structure

In a monarch system, a king or a queen (Kshatriya) rules the subjects and comes to power by genetic lineage and merit combined. The people believe him/her as a representative of the supreme king i.e. God; And thus he/she prosecutes the Dharma. A set of ministers (Kshatriya) are appointees of the ruler, and not of the public. The public cannot directly threaten or replace the ruler; But the ruler must step down or the set of ministers and politicians (Brahmans) take over the government. The politicians earn by providing service (education, arts, research etc.). They do not share the royal wealth, making them more loyal to the common people than the ruler. This leaves a very little scope for top-down corruption.

To clarify, the king or the queen, being the sole owner has no reason for being corrupt. The middlemen or the politicians may become corrupt but are sandwiched between the ruler and the public. On the contrary, the incentive to the politicians, if they do their work right, is that they become the superstars of the nation. The people love them, and wealth is of no concern.

The common person can fight for his rights against any unjust rule. But he also has the privilege of unburdening over to the politicians and focus their skills to where they should. The laws are democratic, but the supreme decision is always in the reserve hands of the king and the ministers; giving a padding against the pitfalls of foolish decisions. Unlike dictatorship, the replacement of power in this political system is possible without too much bloodshed. But at the same time is not as easy as in democracy.


This political system can easily transform to dictatorship if the common man is illiterate and unaware. So, this system can work flawlessly if the common people are educated enough; And they understand their role and limitations in governing a nation.

Constitution of India

India has a democratic constitution, with monarch models. For example, there is a president and members of the upper house that heads the armed forces. There are executives of constitution as the administrative officials. Also, there are representatives of people or members of lower house. To mention the differences, the ministers are appointed not by the president but by the people. The final word on a law is of the president but is only nominal. In fact, the chief of the forces and the administrative bodies should be the ministers; While the MLAs and the MPs should only be debating bodies and not executing bodies. By the law of Hindu Dharm, Kshatriya (Chief of armed forces and administrative bodies) are liable for execution and not the Brahmans (MLAs and MPs) for an even spread of privilege and risk.

It would be highly foolish of me to ask anyone to change the system through the medium of a blog. Also, I do not expect any revolutionary change. Though, I believe that God when wishes will change as necessary. There must be a reason why we do not have the ideal system; When we have a ready framework in our constitution. I have only written this blog for information and understanding from the perspective of a single individual and not a united population; So that one can plan their personal life in the light of knowledge and not myths.


Leave a Reply