My daughter just got back from Thailand. She said that when George Bush’s name is spoken in Thailand that the people start laughing. It is not a laughing matter, but at least it is a start in the right direction.

The last quote deals with how the government could be formed in a benevolent dictatorship and the preceding quotes give further background to democratic government…

On democratic governments:

There are several forms of governmental structure, and among them the democratic structure is highly appreciated. Democracy is defined as “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” But in fact it is the rule of the majority. Hence democracy means “mobocracy” because the government in a democratic structure is guided by mob-psychology. The majority of the society are fools; wise people are always in a minority. Thus, finally democracy is nothing but “foolocracy“.
Discourses on Prout, p.23

On politicians:

The motive of the politicians is only to capture power. They befool the public with high-sounding words. Therefore, it is necessary that the public should be politically educated, because in that case politicians will not be able to cheat them. The time is sure to come when all their cheating tactics will fail to produce any effect, and the public will snatch away their mask of social service.
Discourses on Prout, p.21

On corruption:

In the democratic framework of society, the government may be very keen to pass laws to check corruption, but the government is not equally keen to enforce those laws, because the leaders have to depend upon the votes collected through the media of influential antisocial elements.
Discourses on Prout, p.23

On forming a government in a benevolent dictatorship:

The best form of government is the [benevolent] dictatorship of the sadvipras [spiritual moralist revolutionaries]. The sadvipras will elect a dictatorial board and that board will elect ministers and a chairperson. The chairperson will be the constitutional head. If the chairperson cannot carry out his or her duties efficiently, the board will replace him or her by electing another chairperson. As a principle, individual dictatorship cannot be accepted.

The sadvipras will select good persons to carry out the executive duties in the governmental and non-governmental spheres. They will also nominate top-ranking officials. The board will have power to dismiss them if they are found unfit for any responsibility. The synthetic portion will dictate policy matters and the analytic portion will execute the accepted policy. Thus our socio-economico-political structure will be selecto-electional.
Discourses on Prout, p.24

In my opinion, the ideal political system will still be democracy. More emphasis should be on:
1. That candidates must publish their campaign promises and be held accountable if they break them.
2. Collective leadership, with committees and boards
3. Coordinated cooperation

I’m still not clear though on how, once evolution or revolution has delivered a political system resting on a benevolent dictatorship, how those forming the governing body of this holy aliance would be chosen. Must it be internal selection and appointment?

How would we choose the ’sages’ to govern – would that not also be a voting mechanism of some kind?

Most rulers come to power through either democratic election or forceful takeover.

At the collapse of Communism in the late 1980′s, some of the Eastern Bloc countries changed their leadership in a bloody way (e.g. Romania) and some in a peaceful way (e.g Czech Republic).

In countries where there is greater social freedom and a more intellectual population, political change can be enacted through negotiation, rather than physical force. But in some situations, physical force will surely be used as a last resort.

Is it not true that as the consciousness of society itself expands the sort of policies that politicians need to adobt in order to win power come more and more in line with the expansive and ‘wise’?

Absolutely. This is a very good point. That is why social action as simple as ethical shopping and taking a stand on important issues does make a difference.

The only drawback is that it takes a long time for the majority of an electorate to agree on important social issues. Some would say that the process takes too long when it comes to, for example, environmental issues. Unfortunately, the best choice for the world can often be in opposition to one’s own material comforts. Hence, it can be very difficult to convince the majority that a particular change of policy is necessary. We will see the results of these types of issues as irreversible climate change starts to affect us all in the coming years.

While democratic reform can (at best) bring positive evolution in a society, sometimes I feel we need nothing short of a positive revolution to redress the imbalance in our world.

How does that work then … ‘Since politicians are required to win as many votes as possible, their policies are naturally watered down and thoroughly conservative.’?

How would we choose the ‘sages’ to govern – would that not also be a voting mechanism of some kind?

Is it not true that as the consciousness of society itself expands the sort of policies that politicians need to adobt in order to win power come more and more in line with the expansive and ‘wise’?