Iraq’s liberation, the Arab Spring and the democratic revolution

Saddam’s statue: the bitter regrets of Iraq’s sledgehammer man

Guardian – PETER BEAUMONT – Mar 9, 2013

“Then we had only one dictator. Now we have hundreds,” he says, echoing a popular sentiment in a country mired in political problems and corruption, where killings still occur on an almost daily basis. “Nothing has changed for the better.” Go to story


Where once there was one king, one dictator, now there are hundreds.

Democracy means heavy taxation

excerpt from Lecture on Bhagavad-gītā 2.12, Hyderabad, November 17, 1972:

Formerly, there was no democracy. The so-called democracy. Democracy means that there was one king only; now there are hundreds of kings. One king and few ministers. Now one governor, one, I mean to say, three dozen secretaries, and three dozen… So many things… It is overburdened. The tax, tax is overburdened because there are so many officers. They have to be sumptuously paid. So tax is required. So in this age, Kali-yuga, by, I mean to say, finishing the monarchical system, people have accepted the democratic system, but it is not very much improvement. Because the state expenditure has very much increased and people are very much overburdened with taxes.

Electing somebody wrong

excerpt from Conversation with Lord Brockway, London, July 23, 1973:

Now, suppose if a people in general, they are not advanced, by their votes, somebody is elected, he may not be also advanced. That is the defect of democracy. Mass of people, they are not advanced. So simply by their vote, if somebody is elected, then they will have to repent. Just like Nixon. He’s elected, but these people are again decrying him, that “No, you are not good.” So why do you, did you elect him? You elect, and again you reject. That is the defect of democracy, that people are not advanced. They can commit mistake, elect somebody wrong. And then they will lament. This is the defect. But monarchy, as it was approved by the Vedic culture, the monarchy, if the king is first-class, God conscious… A king should be like that. That is the ideal king. They are described in the Bhagavad-gītā: rājarṣi. The king should be just like saintly person, although he’s king. Rājarṣi. Imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ [Bg. 4.2]. And just like Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira. He was rājarṣi. All the kings in those days, they were trained up in such a way that they were saintly persons, although they were the king. Not debauch. So one person, if he’s authorized… Just like the communists, they are thinking of dictatorship. This is also another kind of dictatorship. But if the dictator, or the king, is a perfect man, then his dictatorship or royal power is quite… But that, that is not possible at the present moment. But at the present moment, the democracy is also not perfect. Because the mass of people, they have no perfect knowledge. By sentiment. So it may be they’re electing a wrong person. That is the defect of democracy.

Who is looking after the needs of the people?

excerpt from purport, Śrīmad-Bhagavatam, Canto 9, Chapter 13, Text 12:

If the government is unsteady and unregulated, there is danger of fear for the people. At the present moment this danger always exists because of government by the people. Here we can see that the great sages got a son from Nimi’s material body to guide the citizens properly, for such guidance is the duty of a kṣatriya king. A kṣatriya is one who saves the citizens from being injured. In the so-called people’s government there is no trained kṣatriya king; as soon as someone strong accumulates votes, he becomes the minister or president, without training from the learned brāhmaṇas expert in the śāstras. Indeed, we see that in some countries the government changes from party to party, and therefore the men in charge of the government are more eager to protect their position than to see that the citizens are happy. The Vedic civilization prefers monarchy. People liked the government of Lord Rāmacandra, the government of Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira and the governments of Mahārāja Parīkṣit, Mahārāja Ambarīṣa and Mahārāja Prahlāda. There are many instances of excellent government under a monarch. Gradually the democratic government is becoming unfit for the needs of the people, and therefore some parties are trying to elect a dictator. A dictatorship is the same as a monarchy, but without a trained leader. Actually people will be happy when a trained leader, whether a monarch or a dictator, takes control of the government and rules the people according to the standard regulations of the authorized scriptures.

This entry was posted in Government, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Iraq’s liberation, the Arab Spring and the democratic revolution

  1. A democratic revolution should be seen as a new stage of humanity’s development, primarily a new way of thinking and innovation in a system of social relations and governance. If it fails to do that then it is merely yet another ‘palace coup’ bringing grist to someone else’s mill. In the absence of the revolutionary idea arab democratic revolutions (“Arab spring”) were doomed to failure even before they started. Replacing leaders doesn’t alters the system allowing arbitrariness.

    A new political system as a real Democratic Revolution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>