_
_
In the past 10,000 or so years of available human history, human habitations, villages towns or countries have been largely under the rule of an all powerful Chief or King, whose word was the law.
There were few brief exceptions in parts of the world where democracy flourished briefly, as in ancient Athens. However largely, human civilizations have been ruled by kings.
Not all King-ruled or to use a modern description authoritarian rule were harsh.
There are many examples in human history where a good King made life wonderful for people. One such from India are the rule by family of King Ram with capital in Ayodhya.
A more recent example is rule by moghul King Akbar who made India a golden bird of the world.
However, since a bad rule is always possible under a bad king, thinkers ponder over a solution. In England, for example, the powers of Royal family were gradually curtailed by an elected house of commons and a house if Lords.
Two houses of parliament provided a balancing mechanism to a possible wild behavior by either of the houses. However, the King or Queen still has the final word.
America and India replaced the hereditary King or Queen by an elected President. It seemed like a good idea for a while until.we came fast forward to the present.
USA, UK and India are facing huge problems and it has got thinkers and philosophers like this author wondering how to correct.
In an earlier post this author had said that it was the role of money needed to fight elections that has corrupted governments
.
Now, after years of further thinking this author feels there is a bigger fundamental problem in leading democracies of India, UK and USA.
The American system has huge difficulties with its legal system. That shall not be covered in this post. Rather, attention is now narrowed down to British and Indian democracy that are quite similar.
View of this author is both have made a huge mistake in designing their democratic system.
THE HUGE MISTAKE
This author realized what the mistake was in the democracy design of India by reflecting on past rules of Kings.
Wise Kings did not have a single Prime Minister who in turn appoints other ministers to assist him in his work. They had at least two or more. The Reason is simple.
A single man can capture all wings of the government including the King. or President. If there is more than one, the chances are reduced drastically.
THEREFORE
the conclusion is both UK and USA should have had at least two prime ministers.
PM1 for matters of defense and external affairs called Prime Minister External
PM2 for home and finance called Prime Minister Home
Both reporting to the king or President.
This author believes that if this had been the case then UK and INDIA would have been in a much better place than now.
HOW TO APPOINT TWO
it would not seem reasonable to have two mass elections for two leaders. A simple way is for a general election to choose PM Home and fir the upper house to choose PM External
comments are welcome that might lead to improving the lives of all humans.
Comments