DEMOCRACY AND GROUP-GOVERNED STATES

official source: Shabda Cayanika' Part 16

cross-references: Prout in a Nutshell Part 14

this version: is the printed Prout in a Nutshell Part 14, 1st edition, version 
	(spelling mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most 
	up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition.

      Gan'a + tan + trae + da' = Ganatantra. The word Tantra means to do something in a controlled or systematic way with proper acceleration. It may be derived as tan' + trae + da'. Here the term Tantra means the liberation from the bondages of crude ness or dullness. Ganatantra means to liberate the masses from the bondages of dullness with the medium of ganeta or people's representatives. Although the word Ganatantra does not properly represent the spirit of democracy, it may be roughly considered as such.

      Since the dawn of human evolution several social problems have confronted humanity. The first and foremost problem was the conflict between rival clans and groups living in different hills and villages. In the initial stage of human evolution, before the discovery of fire, people used to live in caves for safety. Out of fear of the dark, they would close the entrance to the cave with a large boulder at night. At that time human beings were very helpless, and less physically powerful than most other animals. Although primitive humans had more intelligence than other animals, they had very little intelligence in comparison to the people of today. Moreover, they had less power in their nails and teeth than most other animals. They used to live near springs to satisfy their need for water, but caves were not always avail able there. There was no shortage of water in the rivers, but river banks provided no safety from the darkness of the night. Gradually primitive people settled between large rocks or in small valleys, and after some time they started building houses in the branches of trees out of sticks and tall grass. Perhaps this marked the very first step of human civilisation.

      There were frequent fights amongst different groups for possession of caves, valleys and trees. Their weapons in those fights were their teeth and nails. A treaty between Britain and Iberia several centuries ago stated that they would help each other "tooth and nail". Even today people still use the expression "to fight tooth and nail".

      In those days people felt the need to increase their numbers, thus they always tried to increase the number of women in their group. Powerful women became known as group mothers, and activity centered around them as it does around queen ants or queen bees. If one man had ten wives, the wives she could give birth to ten children simultaneously, but if one women had ten husbands, could only give birth to one child. So during their frequent battles primitive people always tried to abduct the women of the opposing group. As a result women lived as the slaves of men. At that time people began to practice phallic worship in the belief that this would help increase their numbers.

	In the next phase, although women were still considered the property of victorious males, they were not allowed to remain as group mothers. Instead, people accepted the leadership of valour ous, strong and capable men. These heroic leaders were assisted by a group of advisers, and this was the first stage in the evolution of the monarchy. Sometimes the king or leader of the group became displeased with his advisory council, so he replaced them and appointed a new council of advisors, just like King Henry the Eighth of England. On the other hand, sometimes the advisory council restricted the power of the king if it was dissatisfied with the monarchy, as in the case of King John of England. The Licchaviis of Vaishali abolished the monarchy and established the first republic about 2500 years ago. The representatives of the people were known as Licchaviis, and they formed an executive body known as Mahalicchaviis through elec tions. The Mahalicchaviis controlled the power in Vaishali that was previously controlled by the monarchy. After a few successive stages of monarchy within the Ks'attriya era, the monarchy was gradually transformed into a republic. This transition usually took place within the Ks'attriya era itself.

      It is generally claimed that a republic does not function according to the whims of a monarch or a particular group. Rather it functions through a system of peoples' representation who are elected by the pious and trusting wishes of the masses. Ganatantra or democracy represents the spirit of government characterised as government of the people, for the people but by the peoples' representatives. Democracy may retain a monarch as a symbolic head of state, like a cosmetic mark on the forehead, as in England or Sweden, or it may not retain it, as in India or the USA. Where a democracy retains the monarchy, the monarchy may have theoretical importance, but in practice it is just an in strument for putting its signature on the democratic system. Theoretically, it is within the power of the king or queen of England to sell the entire Royal Navy if they so wish, but prac tically they cannot sell even a piece of a deck chair from one ship.

      Now a question arises: Is what we call a republic really a republic? The answer is no, certainly not. There are some countries which abolished the monarchy long ago and now call them selves a republic, but in these countries common people do not even have freedom of speech, what to speak of other rights. The state police and intelligence squads watch over the movements and activities of the people. Though such countries call themselves republics, in reality they are only group governed states. Are their leaders elected through a democratic process? No, they are not. The leaders of these group governed states fix the election machinery so that their opponents cannot attain a majority. They disrupt elections by force, by rigging votes, or other dishonest means in an endeavour to maintain their power illegally. Hence, they cannot be called the advocates of democracy -- they are only group leaders elected by people of their own group or party. Their claims to democracy are utterly inconsistent with their professed ideals and behaviour. Their position is like someone who smears his face with black charcoal and then covers it with white talcum powder, and proclaims to the world: "Look how white my face is!"

      There are some people amongst the advocates of democracy who do not support group dictatorships. However, can they affirm on oath that their ideal type of democracy exists in any country of the world today? No, they can't. What is the value of votes from electors who do not have a well developed sense of political consciousness and who do not cherish democratic values? It is very difficult to arouse pious sentiments in them or to procure their votes by just means. Under such circumstances democracy can be converted into "demonocracy" at any moment.

      As the situation stands in the world at present, the rule of Sadvipras as advocated by PROUT is the only solution to this vexed problem. However, it is a fact that the rule of Sadvipras will only come about through the systematic and rational application of PROUT by many highly intelligent people. It is not possi ble to establish the rule of Sadvipras by blind physical force or idle intellectual extravaganza. So, it is the duty of the vanguard of human society to reveal the present predicament of society to the people so that they can understand the real truth. They should make an all out effort to raise the consciousness of the people at the earliest.

17 April 1988, Calcutta
Shabda Cayanika' Part 16