Anarchy or Democracy? (part 1)

“If, I think that by killing you, I can save my life then naturally I have the right to kill you”- Thomas Hobbes.

According to dictionary anarchy means “lawlessness”. Derived from Anarkos meaning “without a chief”, it stands condemning any kind of authority. Democracy, on the other hand is a complex political structure which consists of rules and laws applied to all under it, while treating every citizen equal.

Proudhon, Leo Tolstoy and Noam Chomsky(living) all believed in anarchy. Anarchy stands against the cruel and unfair authoritarian nature of governments or individuals. Even Mahatma Gandhi was a kind of anarchist who rejected the British Government. Basically, anarchists demand freedom, complete freedom. This “freedom” will be contested later in the 2nd part with the help of Mr Rousseau.

The citizens entrust the representatives with enormous power in return of prosperity and tranquility. The men with authority have the liberty to exercise their power in any manner they see fit to perform their duties. The process seems perfect but here too human nature kicks in. Humans have a tendency to use any kind of resource to their benefit be it natural or man made. And ultimately the government uses the state to satiate its own needs. Many believe that the misuse of power is bound to happen and majority will end up fulfilling the desires of few.

In a society which is culturally and economically diversified two important questions arise. How can laws be made and are to followed by every one considering everyone equal when it is not true? And why should the society be run by few chosen heads if everyone is equal? Here Proudhon and Marx have the answers. They say utopian and egalitarian state can’t be achieved by complex political systems but by small communities. Small communities using their own resources while performing everything collectively. From health care to safety, food systems to education, everything can be done collectively. This way the whole community helps itself without any internal malice. No chief or heads will be chosen and the whole community will be accountable for any failure. Things will move collectively and not according to whims of few leaders.

In the name of freedom, liberty and righteousness the governments have ruled wearing several masks such as monarchy, democracy, etc. Today the misuse of power by government officials, Judiciary and even the defense force is so prominent that it is hard to neglect. The political structure in the end does become a state and a small community in itself where everybody looks after each other. As a result minor civil revolts are bound to happen. The recent Aam Aadmi Party in a way has affected the political thinkers in India. After all the ever increasing number of the “privileged ones” and the defense of the bourgeois by the government is not what we desired. Perhaps modified anarchy is the answer to the governments, why should one wait till the right to question the heads is also suppressed(completely)?