Kakistocracy

Kakistocracy is defined as ‘a form of government in which the least qualified or most unprincipled individuals are in power.’ It is summarized as the ‘government by the worst elements in the society.’ Isn’t it true generally? I mean leave apart a few exceptions, some luminaries who retained their souls while still on the seat of power, then you see all rulers and governments Kakistocratic in nature. Exceptions prove the rules only, by the way.

The word has Greek origins. ‘Kakos’ means ‘bad’, and its superlative form ‘kakistos’ means ‘as bad as it can possibly get’. Well, I think only its superlative form qualifies one to be a serious contender. The lesser forms can hardly get you the post of even village head even in the most democratic form of governance. No wonder, those who deem themselves to be ‘good’ start shivering at the name of the word ‘politics’. Or is it that they put up a varnish of ethics, morality, principles and humanism to hide their inherent weakness whose shackles they cannot break to compete in the race for the highest stakes where one’s ambition and concurrent ego meets the best solace.  

Well, before we get into any argument about this system is better than that, or this ruler superior than that one, let’s just clear the basic concept of ‘ruling’ the operational part of hunger for power. To be in charge of something bestows ‘power’. The latter provides morsels of food to an ambition to grow out of one’s skin and become the destiny-makers of many lesser mortals, the mere meekly subjects. It’s very rarely about being ‘good’ and jumping into the fray with a soul-driven guiding light of altruism, to bring good to the masses. If you are fighting such a bloody battle, how will you even think of poor millions while your own gums are bleeding due to the ever-punching rascally opponents? In a fight how can one remain a saint? And if someone does, then my salutes. There have been a few by the way. But their negligible number proves the point.

It’s primarily about beating the ambitious, power-hungry horde running after the coveted seat. Are there decent chances of someone ‘good’ person, who—even if given a jackpot surprise of somehow getting to the top of ladder of ambition—stands out as unqualified and weak participant in the game later on, beating the rampaging bulls. If not altogether impossible, there is literally non-existent chance of someone really ‘good’ toppling the stage the perch on the throne. Even after reaching there, how will a decent ass keep glued to the seat if outright hounds are pulling from all direction to dethrone the decent ass.  

Leave apart a few dozen of Abraham Lincolns and Nelson Mandelas, out of thousands and thousands of rulers across all genres of ruling class, starting from unquestioned aristocrats, despots, communist dictators to the modern-day decent democratic representatives, you have trainloads of extra-smart guys who prevailed over, fuelled by a relentless ambition to yield power, the lesser competitors to occupy the throne.

No wonder, in Indian democracy, or for that matter anywhere else in the world, we have the majority of MLAs and MPs having criminal backgrounds. It needs a lot of ‘hard’ will to get into the corridor of power, man. And the pack leader has to be the strongest. When did nature decide on good or bad? Isn’t it all about the strongest takes away the trophy in all species? Can it be different in case of humans who are mere one of the species in nature? It’s basically about those who can make and those who cannot. It doesn’t change the law of neutral existence if those who cannot make it pacify their defeat under the principles of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Ethics are very nice pills to cure the stomach pain of being left out.

In the power game to emerge a ruler, the strength is defined by an ability to make a mincemeat of the opponent. And where such bloody fights are perpetually going on day in and day out, the little wasps of so called ‘goodness’ hardly stand any chance. Or do they?

Doesn’t it mean that every system of governance, ranging from absolute dictatorship to democracy, is Kakistocratic in nature? Just the variance of degree of Kakistocracy in one over the other, like in communist dictatorship it is direct in the face type and indirect, subtle, scheming and tricky in democracy, doesn’t make one completely into it and the other free of it. You have a Hitler, Lenin or Changez Khan in one set of bloody, gory Kakistrocracy. But then you may have--actually we have all around--monsters safely hidden under starched white clothing bearing beneficent smiles—a better-looking variant of the power-hungry super-species--holding their talons under the garb in the softer variant of yielding power like in democracy.  

Best of luck to you all who don’t qualify to be a part of the group! Only superior forces, beyond terrestrial domain, can help you!