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.
By Sivarama Swami
By Shubha Vilas Das
By Saradiya dasi
By Abhaya Mudra Dasi
