Anti-thesis of democracy
Photo: AFP
Democracy was not invented by the Americans or by the British or by the Arabs. Democracy was invented by the ancient Greeks who believed that ordinary people should have a say in the government and aristocrats and oligarchs should not be allowed to dominate them by virtue of their birth. Athenians invented democracy: a beautiful idea of government by and for the people. But like all the beautiful ideas, democracy has some apparent contradictions and the most seductive one is majority rule, and this is not democracy. It is merely a government by and for the majority. Ancient Athenians learned this lesson the hard way. After several bouts of class warfare, they took practical steps to make government involve all citizens and serve the general interest. Athenians were suspicious of strong leaders who might try to dominate them and they took practical steps to curtail their powers. One such step was the Athens Council -- composed of 100 citizens chosen randomly to represent a cross section of people. The Athens Council was a bulwark against unfair influence of the rich and the powerful while acting as a shield against the majority of poor imposing their will on the rich minority. Its purpose was to protect the poor from the arrogance of the rich and protect the rich from the envy of the poor. This was more democratic than elected representation in some ways -- it made good use of citizens' wisdom as it curbed power of wealth on one hand and the mob on the other. But it was less democratic in others -- the council members were not accountable to voters, as they were not elected. But the central idea that the power of aristocrats and elites needs to be curbed remains germane. This is why dynastic rule is the anti-thesis of democracy. Dynastic rulers tend to become arrogant and autocratic as they consider leadership as an entitlement of their noble birth and must be followed without questioning. They are likely to be more corrupt. If Benazir Bhutto were as dedicated as she claimed, why couldn't she do anything positive during her two tenures as prime minister? She only left behind a trail of mismanagement and corruption. She was also instrumental in the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan -- the very group who took her life. By anointing her minor son as her heir, the PPP has violated the fundamental principle of democracy that no leader should be allowed to dominate the people by virtue of his/her birth. By anointing Bilawal as the future leader, the PPP only promised a klypto-monarchy, not democracy. Bangladesh should also reject dynastic rule by renouncing both Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina and their heirs.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments