RELIGION AND DEMOCRACY

I had written an article long time back about Religion and fanaticism and about how religious dogmas give rise to fanatics and fanaticism. While writing that article I came upon a thought about whether religion suppresses democracy or whether democracy suppresses religion. Either way the effect would be explosive as in both the cases the fundamental freedom of man is at stake. Therefore in this article I have decided to pen my thoughts regarding that very question, whether religion suppresses democracy or whether democracy suppresses religion. There is another very pertinent reason as why this debate should have a logical conclusion. What we are seeing in India along the Kashmir border, what we are seeing in Pakistan, Afghanistan We only point our fingers to one culprit to all the troubles that are been endured by the innocents in these places. Not only in these places but world over we have started blaming one religion for the troubles and the problems and the depleting economy of every nation in this earth. Have we ever tried to find out the proper reasons for the anomalies that are perpetrated world over? Is it not the responsibility of the elected government to set the things in its right perspective? Here in lies the crux of the issue, the crux of the debate that whether religion suppresses democracy? Or the other way round.

Let us then first start defining these two words. What do we understand by the word Democracy. DEMOCRACY: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

Democracy, which derives from the Greek word “demos,” or “people,” is defined, basically, as government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. In some forms, democracy can be exercised directly by the people; in large societies, it is by the people through their elected agents. Or, in the memorable phrase of President Abraham Lincoln, democracy is government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” And now let us define the word Religion. It is very difficult to define religion because it encompasses not only one aspect of human social behavior but it encompasses the entire gamut of human social cultural intellectual behavior. Unlike democracy which just deals with the political behavior of human beings, religion can be seen as a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phenomenon of human kind. Again as said earlier to limit religion to only one of these categories is to miss its multifaceted nature and lose out on the complete definition.”  There are many interpretations of what defines a religion but not one that can be said to be the most accurate. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. An institution to express belief in a divine power. A belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief. The sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe.

In dictionaries, religion is defined as “any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.” Also, “a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.” This was just an attempt to define, religion but how did this aspect of human evolution come into being? If you go to the history you will find that religion was the second important thing that developed in the course of human evolution the evolution of social cultural human being, the physical evolution being complete by that time. the first thing that developed was the need to keep a group of the then hunters and gatherers together as a economical ,social coercive group functioning as one unit, a progressive unit therefore certain rules and regulations were imposed and developed –The first signs of democracy.  The development of religion came second out of fear of the natures fury, the time I am talking about is 40000 to 30000 years before present when the earth was going through various physical turmoil evidence are plenty in various cave arts all over the world which we call therianthropes. Actually the evolution of the brain is responsible for religion to take shape in the psyche of the human beings. The religious mind is one consequence of a brain that is large enough to formulate religious and philosophical ideas. During human evolution the hominid brain tripled in size, peaking 500,000 years ago. Much of the brain’s expansion took place in the neocortex. This part of the brain is involved in processing higher order cognitive functions that are necessary for human religiosity. The neocortex is responsible for self consciousness language and emotion. According to Dunbar’s theory, the relative neocortex size of any species correlates with the level of social complexity of the particular species. The neocortex size correlates with a number of social variables that include social group size and complexity of mating behaviors. In chimpanzees the neocortex occupies 50% of the brain, whereas in modern humans it occupies 80% of the brain.

Robin Dunbar argues that the critical event in the evolution of the neocortex took place at the speciation of archaic homo sapiens about 500 thousand years ago. His study indicates that only after the speciation event is the neocortex sufficiently large enough to process complex social phenomena such as language and religion. The study is based on a regression analysis of neocortex size plotted against a number of social behaviors of living and extinct hominids.

Having said a little about the origin of religion, how did democracy originate then. Was it the function again of the same developed neocortex? Or was it the fall out of the religious concept where by human beings devised a way to be harmonious and progressive, and economically viable social group? There was an article in the Deccan chronicle dated 8th August 2010 which I reproduce verbatim for my readers to get an insights as to how and why religion laid the foundation to democracy.  “The beauty of being a Hindu lies in your freedom to be who you want to be. Nobody can tell you what to do, or what not to do. There is no central authority, no single leader of the faith. No one can pass an order to excommunicate you, or like in some countries, pass a decree that orders your death by stoning for walking with a strange man.

We don’t appreciate our freedom because we can’t feel the plight of others who aren’t free. Many religions have a central authority with awesome power over the individual. They have a clear chain of command, from the lowliest local priest to the highest central leader. Hinduism somehow escaped from such central authority, and the Hindu has miraculously managed to hold on to his freedom through the ages. How did this happen?

Vedanta is the answer. When the writers of Vedanta emerged, around 1500 BC, they faced an organized religion of orthodox Hinduism. This was the post Vedic age, where ritualism was practiced, and the masses had no choice but to follow. It was a coercive atmosphere.

The writers of Vedanta rebelled against this authority and moved away from society into forests. This was how the ‘Aranyakas’ were written, literally meaning ‘writings from the forest’. These later paved the way for the Upanishads, and Vedanta eventually caught the imagination of the masses. It emerged triumphant, bearing with it the clear voice of personal freedom.

]]>

This democracy of religious thought, so intrinsic to Vedantic intelligence, sank into the mindset of every Indian. Most couldn’t fathom the deep wisdom it contained, but this much was very clear. They understood that faith was an expression of personal freedom, and one could believe at will.

That’s why Hinduism saw an explosion of Gods. There was a God for every need and every creed. If you wanted to build your muscles, you worshiped a God with fabulous muscles. If you wanted to pursue education, there was a Goddess of Learning. If it was wealth you were looking for, then you looked up to the Goddess of wealth — with gold coins coming out of her hands.

If you wanted to live happily as a family, you worshiped Gods who specially blessed families. When you grew old and faced oncoming death, you spent time in contemplating a God whose business it was to dissolve everything — from an individual to the entire Universe.

Everywhere, divinity appeared in the manner and form you wanted it to appear, and when its use was over, you quietly discarded that form of divinity and looked at new forms of the divine that was currently of use to you. ‘Yad Bhavam, tad Bhavati’… what you choose to believe becomes your personal truth, and freedom to believe is always more important than belief itself.

Behind all this — was the silent Vedantic wisdom that Gods are but figments of human imagination. As the Kena Upanishad says, “Brahma ha devebhyo vijigye…” — All Gods are mere subjects of the Self. It implies that it is far better that God serves Man than Men serve God. Because Men never really serve God — they only obey the dictates of a religious head who speaks for that God, who can turn them into slaves in God’s name.

Hindus have therefore never tried to convert anyone. Never waged war in the name of religion. The average Hindu happily makes Gods serve him as per his needs. He discards Gods when he has no use for them. And new

Product Description
Closely examining some of our most deeply held notions about the role of science, distinguished philosopher Philip Kitcher engages the heated debate about how scientific knowledge should be pursued and employed. Kitcher paints a pragmatic portrait of the sciences that allows for the possibility of scientific truth but nonetheless permits social consensus to determine which avenues need to be investigated…. More >>

Science, Truth, and Democracy

Aristotle on Democracy
by Tatiana Velitchkov © 2009

The issue of democracy has been a subject of much debate over the years and many philosophers have had something to say about it. Aristotle is one of the great philosophers from Athens whose contributions to this subject remain notable. He studied democratic governments, their compositions, variety and stability and came up with his own views which were adopted later by those interested in the theory of democracy. The design of political institutions and the welfare of the citizen was his area of interest.

Aristotle views democracy as when the poor rule exclusively in their own interest. By this, he means the rule of many as opposed to a select few and in this way, virtues prevail. According to him, political functions should be divided between the rich and the poor so that there is some balance in the two classes. This is his idea of a practicable state, one which combines oligarchy and democracy. He does not support the idea of people holding office singly or a group of people for that matter. In his search for the perfect constitution he differentiated the government that served the needs of individuals and that which served the needs of the whole nation.

On the issue of equality, Aristotle says that those who are equally free should be absolutely equal and his democracy is based on this notion. He talks about democratic constitutions and social classes and how they may prevail in the same condition. For example, democratic constitutions cannot work in anti-democratic social conditions. Aristotle’s democratic government simply takes care of the needy by letting them rule themselves.

Aristotle also describes his idea of a democratic government as a polity. His polity form of government is the one ruled by the middle class in the society. The middle class are the ones between the many poor and the few rich. Hence Aristotle does not really support democratic governments but the ones he calls polity. This polity governance is sort of a mixed ruling in that it combines democracy, oligarchy and aristocracy. This type of governance was the one that served the nation as a whole because it considered the interests of the majority.

The democratic ideas brought forward by Aristotle can be used and apply to modern forms of governance. He was a great thinker and although he was concerned with the society he lived in, his aim was not to change it but to make it better.

And this lecture of Yale University on Aristotle focuses on controlling conflict between factions. Polity as a mixture of the principles of oligarchy and democracy.