Activist, Cynic, Layman
An activist is essentially a
concerned citizen with the right moral values who seethes in anger at seeing
the apparent and unmistakable injustice around him in society in general and in
governments in particular. He is so worked up that he feels that it is his duty
to do something to set right matters to the best of his abilities regardless of
the thankless nature of his actions. For him, the right way is the only way.
However, the political structure and the use of power coupled with his own lack
of power makes him an unsuccessful individual tilting at windmills.
A cynic is one who thinks that we
live in an imperfect world and that it is natural for greedy men to try and grab
whatever they can. For him might is right and means always justify the ends. Using
the influence of money, caste and religion for power and personal gains is all
but natural. Given the selfish nature of men, it would be naïve to expect a
value based, dharmic society. It would also be naïve to apply a moral yardstick
to politicians and businessmen.
A layman is one who is completely
immersed in his own affairs and least bothered about what happens outside his
sphere of activities. He believes that what is destined to happen will happen.
A firm believer in fate, he is convinced that everyone will suffer or prosper
as per one’s Karma which explains the disparity in the fortunes of people.
Worried about his near and dear ones, he is least concerned about the
shenanigans of people in power and influence.
All political systems (not necessarily
rulers) have the same basic goals. Welfare of citizens, eradication of poverty
and sufficient production of goods and services required for a reasonably
comfortable life for everyone. But the means to achieve these goals differ
vastly from system to system. We are not too far removed from the times of monarchies
and feudalistic societies. Democracy and governments of the people, by the
people and for the people are recent phenomena. Burdened with limited universal
education, awareness, gender bias, we are far removed from an ideal system of
governance.
All systems are founded on the fact
that there are two major essentials to be able to achieve anything. Power to
govern and Resources. It is ironical that if a country has sufficient resources
like Saudi Arabia, people do not really care about the type of Government as
long as their needs are met. Power is in the hands of monarchy but nobody seems
to mind.
If you ask the communists, they
will say power flows through the barrel of a gun. Authoritarian governments
like Nazi Germany can lead to unmitigated disaster like the holocaust. Or for
instance the horrifying aftermath of Cultural Revolution under Mao in China. On
paper, democracy seems the best possible solution and would be ideal if only
everyone is committed to serve in a selfless moralistic manner, which is asking
for the impossible. Communists and socialists seem to overlook the innate
selfish and greedy nature of men resulting in corruption, scandals and what
not. They also tend to forget that all men are not equal and that each has his
own strengths and weaknesses.
Can anyone name a single Indian
politician in the past 70 years who hasn’t seen his fortunes increase
exponentially during his period of service? Or for that matter, not used caste,
influence and money to get elected? Idealism unfortunately has very little space
in politics.
The silver lining is that if things
go too much out of hand, a politician will be voted out by the collective wisdom of
the electorate. It is therefore imperative that education, awareness and
righteousness would spread far more widely than at present in the population to
act as checks and balances against immoral politicians.
