After the election of Donald
Trump I had penned a blog post on the 'Age of Mahabali'. (http://karmasutratkos.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/trump-harbinger-of-age-of-mahabali.html). After reading that blog, one of my friends remarked that despite being the best
system of governance, democracy is pushing people like Donald Trump to the top
when there are possibly thousands of far better quality people in the US. I remained silent.
However, I have always believed
that democracy as it exists in countries like US or UK (and in other countries which have simply copied that system) is NOT the best system of governance. This
Western style democracy is merely a system of governance which could be perhaps
considered the least pernicious. Needless to say, there is always a fine line
of difference between the least of evils
and the genuinely best.
If Western (UK/US style) democracy
was indeed the best system of governance it should have automatically catapulted
the most competent, visionary, ethical leaders to the top leadership positions.
But as we have seen recently in the case of US elections, which is one of the best
examples of democracy, where voting is by and large free from fear of violence,
coercion or bribery - it is possible for unpleasant, toxic people to reach the
top position. In Germany, in 1932 also,
Hitler's Nazi party got the largest number of votes (effectively, 'won the
elections') through a largely free and fair democratic system. And we are not even going to 'democracies'
such as those in Africa, parts of Latin America, Asia etc. where voting and
elections are unduly influenced by money, brute power, intimidation and
violence.
What then, is the problem with
this model of democracy? Isn’t it better to get a leader by majority votes? Isn’t
it far better not to have a
king or a dictator who will govern a country ruthlessly and more often than
not, amass wealth, concentrate power, punish people – all for personal pride,
ego and aggrandisement? All these
arguments are fair. But in order to better illustrate the problem of democracy,
let me narrate an imaginary story.
Let us imagine that a small chartered
jet plane having 70 passengers and having only a pilot, co-pilot and stewardess,
is flying from New York to London. By an unfortunate quirk of fate, while the
jet is high above the Atlantic Ocean, the main pilot suffers a fatal heart
attack and is dead within minutes on his seat. Now, the inexperienced co-pilot
takes over, but as luck would have it, all this stress causes him to suddenly feel
faint and within minutes, he is also lying unconscious. The plane seems to be
flying smoothly as of now, but the panicked stewardess who was informed by the
co-pilot before his collapse, thinks it fit to apprise the passengers of the
grave situation, after her own efforts to revive either of the two pilots fail.
There is no doctor or medical professional on board this plane.
Among the passengers there is a
man about 67 years of age, who volunteers to take over the controls in the
cockpit. Another brilliant, physically attractive, very fit young man who is a
top investment banker also offers his service. This young man of 33 has been a
top scorer in mathematics and in his class of Wharton, had scored the highest
marks in almost every subject.
Both of them volunteer to take
over the controls of the plane using emergency instruction manuals and whatever
other resources are at hand to help the plane land somewhere smoothly. Since there are two contenders, and both seem
convinced that they are the best suited to save the plane and the passengers, the
stewardess asks the remaining 68 passengers to vote by a show of hands for the person
they would like to take charge of the plane.
The investment banker talks of
his brilliant intelligence, grasping powers, mathematical prowess etc. for one
minute and asks the passengers to vote for him to take over the cockpit. However,
he admits he has never flown a plane before.
In his brief self-introduction, the
65 year old man with a minor problem of slight back pain but otherwise fit, says
that while his main occupation before retirement was a manager of an insurance
company, his hobby was to fly planes by being a member of a flying club. He has
over 500 hours of flying experience of different planes.
Whom would the panic-stricken,
stressed passengers in this emergency situation vote for? It is a no-brainer.
The moment they hear the short speech of the 65 year old man they instantly
breathe a collective sigh of relief and unanimously agree that the man with
flying expertise and experience must take over the controls, perhaps assisted
by the other young man.
This is how good mature
democracies are supposed to work, where people think and act intelligently to
preserve their own best interests by electing the best suited leader to take
them further on the journey of growth, progress and betterment.
Now let us tweak the situation a
little. Let us assume that other than the 65 year old man, the stewardess and
the two pilots (who are now out of the picture), every other passenger and
staff on the plane has the intelligence of a 3- year old normal child. (Let us
ignore for a moment the technicalities of the situation – for example, how
these adults are being allowed to travel without escorts etc.)
In this situation, perhaps there
is a real danger that these unruly passengers may not listen to the 65 year old
man who alone who has the expertise to land the plane safely. They might fight
among themselves. Or they might elect someone who has the best muscles,
assuming perhaps like 3 year-olds, that physical strength is the most important
quality to steer a plane. Or they might vote for the most sweet-looking bloke
or lady. There is also a chance they might vote to install in the cockpit,
those who are similar to themselves in some way – for example, those who look similar to them (Black or White or Asian) or speak
the same language.
The reason why these mentally
challenged passengers are not able to see clearly through the situation is
because their limited mental resources do not allow them to think straight through
all the diverse information (noise and chatter)
thrown at them about race, religion, beauty and so on. Their logical thinking
processes are not sufficiently developed for them to think clearly without
getting swayed by emotions and various other variables/factors which are not
relevant to their situation.
This can often happen in a
democracy. When the collective intelligence and moral compass of a society is
disturbed by confusing information, emotion, sense of grievance etc. and people
in a society do not have sufficient foresight and mental clarity to sift
through this maze of information to focus on what is clearly relevant for them;
then we see that people end up voting in a haphazard, impulsive manner.
Normal human beings of 16 years
and above do not have the intelligence of 3 year olds. We are rational beings –
some of the readers might argue.
Are we really rational? How many
us actually go to a supermarket and pick things on impulse because we like the
colour of packaging or its attractive presentation? Do we really compare all
the products of similar types available in the market place and then buy the
best priced and highest quality product which is what rationally we should have done? Do we not have the irrational
history of consuming products like Cola soft drinks which most of us know is far more damaging to
our health than plain water or fresh orange juice, simply because they give us
fleeting almost emotional satisfaction on our taste buds?
History has proven again and again
that societies which tend to get swayed by emotions, past grievances, perceived
grievances, stress and incomplete or distorted information etc. tend to elect
people who would otherwise never be elected. Because many Germans carried the
perception of grievance and unfairness after the 1st world war, they
thought it fit to support someone like Hitler who showed the macho promise of
teaching all those who wronged the Germans, a lesson.
Hence, the question is not
whether the intelligence of a society is of a 3- year old or 15 year old. The
more important question is whether the society is bombarded by too much
information - real, fake, perceptions, opinions, bigotry etc. to the extent that the
population within that society becomes as confused as a 3- year old with a
variety of choices. A 3-year old may not
have the intelligence or logical discrimination to choose which amongst a bar
of chocolate, a slice of apple pie or a £50 note, is the best option. A 3-year old might get logically disoriented when
5 or 6 different complicated variables are thrown at him and asked to sift
information that is relevant from the irrelevant pieces of information. In such a scenario, when pressed to make a
decision, the child might decide on impulse or emotion rather than clear logic.
For an adult human the same disorientation might set in, when 25 or 30 different
variables, strains of thoughts and ideas are bombarded unto his conscious
screen.
Imagine an adult of average
intelligence already having his/her own subtle bias/prejudices, and now bombarded
with hundreds of messages on social media, informal opinions, Youtube,
Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp shares, television, conventional newspapers, thousands
of websites, hoardings etc. Some of these Facebook posts, Whatsapp forwards and
Tweets are informal messages with little or no editorial control, while other messages come through responsible,
quality checked, facts-verified sources. The most simplistic messages are very often
constructed on personal opinions with poor review of facts, but easier to
consume than complicated messages with nuanced arguments. It might not therefore
be surprising if the average adult decides to seek refuge in simplistic
messages rather than nuanced and complicated arguments from reliable sources. Some
of these messages lead people into an imaginary world of conspiracy theories
and an alternative world view. It can all lead to a vote based on impulse,
emotion, distorted, parochial, bigoted or prejudiced world view. To the somewhat objective observer, this might
look as ludicrous as the plane load of passengers opting for the good looking 33
year old man with no experience instead of the 65 year old flying expert to
save their plane. But I call it the Information Overload Paradox (IOP).
Therefore, it is no surprise that
to this adult with overload of simplistic information, Brexit looked far more attractive option to protect Britain or Trump looked like the person most fit
to guard US borders from Islamic terror.
Now that I have outlined the
great problem of democratic societies in the era of information overload, (and this is only going to get worse), I
will not escape without giving the solution for this problem. But since this post has already become quite
long, I think I will outline my holistic solution for this eternal question of
governance, both a short-term fix and also the long-term panacea
(which comes from the deep annals of Eastern wisdom), in my next blog post.
©Staju Jacob, 2017.
Staju Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc. He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS
