By Sita Rama das
Democratization is an attempt to counteract the tyranny of powerful men by transferring power to the people. It tries to make all people equal but it leads to the degradation of all the people, by all the people. Vedic Society does not try to equalize material power; it is designed to facilitate, in all people, the realization that we are equal on the spiritual level. ISKCON wants to be a society which counteracts the degradation of people in modern democracy in order to facilitate spiritual realization. But there are possible pitfalls when trying to reestablish the Vedic model.
We analyze this with the help of the scholar, Alexis DeTocqueville, who came to America, from France, in the early 1800’s. In his book, Democracy in America, he contrasted American Democracy with French Aristocracy. He gives a brilliant description of how democracy narrows our consciousness to the small world of our own sense pleasure.
We anticipate an audience familiar with the structure and ideals of Vedic Society; who can see the resemblance between it and aristocracy; as described by Tocqueville. We can thus do an interesting analysis of the route of degradation. First there was Vedic Society, this was degraded to European Aristocracy, and then Democracy. We can thus get some insights on what is required for the route back to Vedic Culture in ISKCON.
Regarding aristocratic society, Tocqueville described the societal relationship between the eldest son and his younger brothers, the relationship between master and servant, and the relationship between highly learned men and the masses of people. The similarity to these relationships and the corresponding ones in Vedic Society is clear. He described how these are transformed in democracy, in a way that results in relationships based solely on human passion.
In aristocratic governments the top hierarchy ruled a few individuals; then these individuals, essentially, ruled those lower in the hierarchy. In democracy these intermediary rulers are practically eliminated and majority opinion becomes the new authority. Majority opinion rules people directly and also dominates the government. Human passions naturally dominate majority opinion; therefore, such passions are the new controlling force. As devotees, we will agree that this force narrows our consciousness by pulling it toward the immediate objects of sense gratification. (Tocqueville asserted that, in a democracy, majority opinion has more power over people than any King could ever imagine).
Although there are examples of people not being controlled by majority opinion, and examples of beneficial results of majority opinion, this does not negate the fact that it is a principal, dominating, and problematic force in the world today. Of course sometimes people are dominated by an opinion which is considered a majority opinion although it is only shared by the majority within a person’s clique which they have come to see as the only world with any relevance.
We will give a few examples that show how majority opinion has more control than a King. Although they may know practically nothing about it, few question the assertion that global warming is a result of human activities. It is blindly accepted because people feel questioning it would be a lack of humanity on their part. Due to the power of public opinion, questions which could lead to greater understanding are stifled from within.
Lawrence Summers, the former President of Harvard, never denied that women are top leaders in the fields of physics and engineering; yet he dared to suggest that the underrepresentation of women in these fields (in terms of quantity) might be caused by something other than sexism. Although he retracted this statement, with groveling apologies, he was forced to resign from his position for suggesting something which was not politically correct, even though the question he posed is a valid research topic.
Harvard Law School Professor, Alan Dershowitz, in his book, Shouting Fire, says he agrees with the liberal views of most of his students but is gravely concerned about their intolerance. His sees a palpable fear of moderate students to question the more numerous liberals. Rather than debating with moderates, in what is supposed to be the, “marketplace of ideas”, the liberal students appeal to the provost to prohibit expression of certain views. They want to prohibit, not only the expression of moderate views, but the type of thinking that leads to it.
Volumes could be written about the tyranny of majority opinion, we will end with a few paragraphs. At the end of the paper we discuss why the power of public opinion is a particular concern for devotees. Before that we analyze how it has risen to an, essentially, indomitable force.
In aristocratic society children were unequal according to age. The eldest son inherited the bulk of the father’s property and at some point became the master of his younger brothers, “Greatness and power are his; mediocrity and dependence are theirs”. Of course this was the policy in Vedic Culture also.
When I first heard about this policy I was struck by the feeling that it was somehow unfair. However Tocqueville explains that the privileges did not benefit the eldest son only.
Tocqueville claims:
The eldest usually tries hard to obtain wealth and power for his brothers, because the general splendor of the house is reflected on the one who represents it; and the younger brothers try to facilitate all the enterprises of the eldest, because the grandeur and strength of the head of the family make him more and more able to elevate all the branches.
So although they were unequal in power, aristocratic siblings were tied together by the laws of society and shared interests. In democracy the only thing which ties siblings together is sharing experiences in the, “sweet innocence of childhood”. Tocqueville calls this a natural bond, we might call it sense gratification. Democracy loosens social bonds but tightens natural bonds. Natural bonds are our bondage to sense gratification and the bodily concept of life.
Tocqueville observed Americans intermingling in political assemblies and then separating into small, very distinct associations. They have a very small number of friends. This is because the ideal of equality is at odds with the universal desire to be distinct, so people find a, “multitude of artificial and arbitrary classifications”, and form very small, cliques. Again, the consciousness of individuals is pulled into a small sphere by bonds of sense gratification.
According to Tocqueville, in an aristocratic society, servants and masters are two distinct and fixed classes. The virtue and honor of the masters is not experienced by the servants but the servants have virtue and honor of their own.
“Among aristocratic peoples, it was not rare to find, in the service of the great, noble and vigorous souls who bore servitude without feeling it, and who submitted to the will of their master without fearing his anger”.
Sometimes this reaches the point where a servant is more particular about what is owed to the master than the master is. In short, the servant develops affection for the master. Tocqueville said he saw no such man in America, and it was difficult for an American to understand such a person exists.
I must admit, growing up in a working class family, I never conceived of a person having affection for his employer or master. Reading Tocqueville’s explanation helped me to see how this was possible.
In America our social position is not fixed. We believe, down to the innermost core of our being, that all men have an equal right to capitalizes. The employee feels he is equal but he must temporarily accept the inferior position as a, “degrading and useful fact. The employer has little reason to feel protective and benevolent toward a person who is in the same race, and equally capable of running it.
In Aristocratic societies, the servant identified the betterment of his master with the betterment of himself, his descendants, and his class. Equality was not shared, but there was a shared interest. In democracy the opposite is true, equality is imagined and interests are all individual.
In an aristocracy the servant cannot imagine himself rising to a different position, he is therefore compelled to believe that the inequality of positions is a, “result of some hidden law of Providence”. It is not his master alone who controls him, but a whole class of masters, as well as the design of universe. It is a societal relationship which is connected to a universal reality. According to the Vedic idea, such a foundation allows us to connect with the Source of All Existence, The Supreme Personality of Godhead, by performing our societal obligations. Servant and master share this same goal while working together, and affection develops. In democracy, servant and master work exclusively for their own sense gratification. However close they are, physically, their affection is only for themselves.
Tocqueville says, aristocratic societies are comprised of a small group of men who are powerful due to their learning and intelligence, and, “a multitude of very ignorant people”. So men are inclined to allow the learned class to guide their opinions. They are not so inclined to believe in the infallibility of the masses. In contrast, when men are equal they do not believe one above another, but they believe the truth is found in the opinion of the greatest number.
I am glad that, unlike in former times, I was taught how to read in spite of the fact that I was not born in a noble or learned family. But in ways, it may be better for people to follow the advice of (certain) learned and religious men as opposed to accepting the opinion of the majority as sacrosanct. I am sure, in past ages, a person changed from being a follower of one philosopher to another with less trepidation than one experiences today when asked to accept tenets of Vedic Scriptures which are not politically correct.
I am compelled to ask, can ISKCON develop a society similar to the Vedic ideal, with similar levels of power in leaders, without the leaders abusing these powers? That is a big question. But in our attempts to answer it we must consider certain obstacles.
Before becoming devotees our idea of power was the power of majority opinion, but an ISKCON authority should not subsume this power. To do so is to dictate beyond the level in which authorities lead Vedic society.
Tocqueville considered democracy a good thing, in many ways yet he observed
I know of no country where, in general, there reigns less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion than in America… In America, the majority draws a formidable circle around thought. it (majority opinion) covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd.
This is not the nature of authorities in Vedic Society, they encouraged free discussion so the truth could be understand through personal conviction. There are innumerable examples in the Vedic Scriptures where a subordinate questions the statements of a superior, and it is clear that the duty of the superior is to gain compliance through discussion and education on the topic in question. There are numerous examples where a subordinate first suggests a course of action, which the authority then approves. There are also examples of a subordinate countering a superior’s perspective, and then the superior, rightfully, changes.
In contrast, democratization instills in people a fear of questioning the sanctity of majority opinion. A would be questions, is stifled from within before it can even become a conscious thought. This prohibits discussion which could lead to a genuine understanding. If a person dares, or accidentally, says something which defies public opinion, the multitudes who oppose him feel no need to justify the majority opinion with facts or rational arguments. As we noted above, people have ruined their career because they made a statement which was not politically correct, although what they said could be supported by logic. But logic falls on deaf ears if it defies majority opinion.
So we, who originally know only the authority of majority opinion, must realize the need to change our style if we become authorities in ISKCON. If the leaders simple try to grant greater power to various individuals in a restored Vedic hierarchy, without acknowledging that the style of control must also change, the result will be a travesty of Vedic culture.
Is this bash democracy week on Dandavats?
No one every claimed democracy was the perfect form of government. Certainly not the American founders of the largest and most successful form of this particular style of governance. There has been unlimited commentary and critique since, by leading thinkers throughout the western democracies.
The democratic option was seen a facilitating a form of check and balances amongst the “demon crazy” class that covets political power, and still does quite prominently as we also see in numerous less than democratic societies. Representative government was also considered as potential leveler of the field, to help force some degree of accountability by the government for the people it claimed to protect and serve.
Democracy arose as a potential viable alternative to entrenched materialistic elitism. It is not just that the ksyatriya class had fallen from progressive values, but brahminical leadership was rather sorely lacking as well. That, arguably, is the core of the entire issue. Without the substance of that style of leadership, its does not matter what system you wish to adore.
Interesting selection of quotations from Tocqueville. They seem to miss the thrust of his analysis, which was one of admiration.
Part 1 of 2
Mr. SDMUNI,
You wrote:
“… but brahminical leadership was rather sorely lacking as well. That, arguably, is the core of the entire issue. Without the substance of that style of leadership, its does not matter what system you wish to adore.”. END QUOTE
The point is that the governmental system of the Vedas and the Brahmana’s was structured to facilitate spiritual consciousness, it is not surprising that societies structured without that leadership tend to reinforce materialism. Detailed analysis of this may be of value to us who exist in grossly matariaistic societies. If you disagree with this assertion I can respond. Otherwise we can discuss democracy from a million angles, all of which will be off the point of this topic.
I selected quotations from Tocqueville which are self-verifying explanations of how democracy pulls us toward sense gratification. Other points explain how the structure of aristocracy (which is comparable to Vedic Society) facilitate societal relationships; connected to a universal reality. Such things as the eldest son inheriting everything and the great deference of servants for their masters seemed to me a bit unfair, but Tocqueville’s explanation of these things help me understand the utility of them, and how transforming these into a society of, “equality” inhibits spiritual consciousness by reinforcing materialism. I do not know why you call this bashing?
I will give a few more quotes from Tocqueville. You may attempt to repudiate them if you wish.
In America:
Although they have an abundance rather than being satisfied by this they think constantly about the goods that they do not have. You are at first astounded contemplating this singular agitation exhibited by so many happy men, in the very midst of abundance. This spectacle is, however, as old as the world; what is new is to see it presented by an entire people.
But men will never establish an equality that is enough for them. Whatever efforts a people may make; it will not succeed in making conditions perfectly equal within it… you can therefore count on each of its citizens always seeing near himself several points that are above him, and you can predict that he will obstinately turn his attention solely in their direction… When all is nearly level, the least inequalities offend it. This is why the desire for equality always becomes more insatiable as equality is greater.
Part 2 of 2
I see an innumerable crowd of similar and equal men who spin around restlessly, in order to gain small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each one of them, withdrawn apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others; his children and his particular friends form for him the entire human species as for the remainder of his fellow citizens, he is next to them, but he does not see them; he touches them without feeling them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone,
… it is a matter of adding a few feet to his fields, of planting an orchard, of enlarging a house, of making life easier and more comfortable each moment, of avoiding discomfort and satisfying the slightest needs effortlessly and almost without cost. These goals are small, but the soul becomes attached to them; it thinks about them every day and very closely; these goals finish by hiding from the soul the rest of the world, and they sometimes come to stand between the soul and God.
It is necessary that all those who are interested in the future of democratic societies unite, and that all in concert make continual efforts to spread within these societies the taste for the infinite, the sentiment for the grand and the love for non-material pleasures. If among the opinions of a democratic people there exist a few harmful theories that tend to make you believe that everything perishes with the body, consider the men who profess them as the natural enemies of the people.
Mr. SDMUNI
The thesis of my article is given in the first paragraph. It is not a call to end democracy; rather it is a caution to those who want to re-establish a Vedic type society.
Personally, I believe the most practical thing is to analyze how material society influences us, and then change as individuals. Focusing on trying to create our own society, or radically changing modern ones, may be infected with the attitude of seeing majority opinion as absolute. An additional problem which I did not mention is fanaticism. I will let Tocqueville explain this:
You find here and there, within American society, some souls totally filled with an excited and almost fierce spiritualism that you hardly find in Europe…If the social state, circumstances and laws did not so narrowly confine the American spirit to the pursuit of well-being, it is to be believed that when the American spirit came to occupy itself with non-material things, it would show more reserve and more experience, and that it would control itself without difficulty. But it feels imprisoned within the limits beyond which it seems it is not allowed to go. As soon as it crosses those limits, it does not know where to settle down, and it often runs without stopping beyond the bounds of common sense.END QOUTE
Many of us are convinced that the theory of majority opinion is sound. We must see that it is anything but rational.
First given: No individual is strong enough or sufficiently free from selfishness, bias and other weaknesses to be the sole ruler.
Second given: Every person has some strength, selflessness and wisdom.
Fallacious conclusion: The opinion of the most will have the greatest strength, selflessness and wisdom.
The conclusion does not follow. It is just as likely the opinion of the most will be the sum of the weakness, selfishness and bias of all.
Let’s get over it!
Greetings Sita Rama das – I regret to inform you that you are most unqualified to be discussing the system of government in ANY Western democracy, let alone that of the United States. First, the above comment on Tocqueville is quite correct; Tocqueville’s analysis was one of praise, not comdemnation. Second, Tocqueville wrote his views quite some time ago. Much has changed in the U. S. since then. Third, the United States is a Democratic REPUBLIC. In such a system, a balance of powers is assured, with corruption prevented, as long as aware and informed citizens PARTICIPATE in the process of their government. There is no mob rule in this system. However, if the people and their morals are corrupted, then their participation is diminished. With that, corrupt infiltrators can enter and perform acts of treason (crimes against the people). Persons unqualified, spouting misinformation, may also be considered enemies of the people. If not for this system, which the citizens of the USA try hard to continue, Srila Prabhupada would have never been able to do the great preaching he accomplished… Please stick with what you really know. Thank you. Hare Krishna!
Greeting Bhakta C.
You seem to be saying that because there are good things about democracy we should not beware of negative influences? If you are, that makes no sense to me.
I am not concerned with other things Tocqueville said, he may have loved democracy or hated it, he may be a genius or a fool. I selected quotations that illuminate the particular manner maya has entangled us in the world today. That is golden, so I accept it regardless of the source.
I agree, much has changed in America since the early 1800’s and that change can be characterized as a multiplication of materialism, which Tocqueville scorned, and warned the people about.
Srila Prabhupada said if the people become Krishna Conscious democracy will not be a problem. But we can never become Krishna Consciousness until we free ourselves from the rat race which is incited by democracy. Every system has pitfalls why would democracy not? And why should we not point them out.
Tocqueville wrote:
… the love of material enjoyments must constantly lead the Americans toward disorder in morals, disturb families and in the end compromise the fate of society itself.
Democracy favors the taste for material enjoyments. This taste, if it becomes excessive, soon disposes men to believe that everything is only matter; and materialism, in turn, finally carries them with an insane fervor toward these same enjoyments. Such is the fatal circle into which democratic nations are pushed.
I would judge that its citizens risk becoming brutalized less by thinking that their soul is going to pass into the body of a pig than by believing that it is nothing.
Most religions are only general, simple and practical means to teach men the immortality of the soul. END QUOTATIONS
Tocqueville predicted that if the people’s conception of themselves as immortal souls was not a prominent feature of democratic society it would lead to a state of disorderd morals, the inability to see anything beyond matter, and voidism. He could see it in the future; if we cannot see it when it is right in front of our eyes we have a problem.
Bhakta C. You say that I am, “most unqualified” to discuss, “any Western Government”. and imply I am spouting off misinformation to the point that I am an enemy of the people. But I see little genuine attempt to repudiate my points.
You say Tocqueville admired democracy; but you do not say why his criticisms of it are invalid. The fact is, if he admired democracy it shows he is not emotional biased against it, this increases the credibility of his criticisms. Your first point says nothing that shows an error in my argument.
You say much has changed since Tocqueville but, you give no evidence that the situation of today is not as I have described it. You do not back up your second point at all.
You then give your own critique of democracy, which is that lack of citizen participation can result in corrupt people infiltrating. This is followed by the statement about spouting off misinformation. But I gave no information contrary to your third point, rather it seems in line with the points I made. Tocqueville noted a lack of participation even in the early 1800’s, for the same causes I have focused on. He saw people giving all their time and energy toward personal sense gratification and have nothing left to contribute to politics. The aristocracy, who need not work for wealth, shouldered these burdens in the past, they no longer exist.
Tocqueville wrote:
When the mass of citizens wants only to concern itself with private affairs, the smallest parties do not have to despair of becoming masters of public affairs. It is then not rare to see on the worlds vast stage, as in our theaters, a multitude represented by a few men. The latter speak alone in the name of the absent or inattentive crowd; alone they take action amid the universal immobility; they dispose of everything according to their caprice; they change laws and tyrannize mores at will; and you are astonished to see into what a small number of weak and unworthy hands a great people can fall.END QUOTE
I never said devotees should not participate in democratic government, they should just not be manipulated by it’s negative influences.