MONARCHY IS BETTER THAN DEMOCRACY. These are the characteristics of an impartial ruler. It is the duty of a ruler to punish the criminal and give protection to the innocent. The King was so neutral that if his own son were punishable, he would not hesitate to punish him. On the other hand, if the son of his enemy were innocent, he would not engage in some intrigue in order to punish him. When there is a pious king ruling over the world, the people are happy. When the ruler is impious, the people are unhappy. In the age of Kali in most cases the rulers are impious, and therefore the citizens are also continuously unhappy. But in the case of democracy, the impious citizens themselves elect their representative to rule over them, and therefore they cannot blame anyone for their unhappiness. Monarchy is better than democracy because if the monarchy is very strong the regulative principles within the kingdom are upheld very nicely. Even one hundred years ago in the state of Kashmir in India, the king was so strong that if a thief were arrested in his kingdom and brought before him, the king would immediately chop off the hands of the thief. As a result of this severe punishment there were practically no theft cases within the kingdom. Even if someone left something on the street, no one would touch it. The rule was that the things could be taken away only by the proprietor and that no one else would touch them. In the so-called democracy, wherever there is a theft case the police come and take note of the case, but generally the thief is never caught, nor is any punishment offered to him. As a result of incapable government, at the present moment thieves, rogues and cheaters are very prominent all over the world. Ref >> Srila Prabhupada Vani.
Posted on: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:22:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015