I read an interesting piece about choice today – how we choose to act and react. What do we do when things don’t go how we want them too? And how do we react when we feel things go our way? Yesterday we woke up to the news that the general election here in Britain had resulted in a hung parliament – not the news a lot of us wanted whichever way we voted. The day’s news programs were focused very much on the reactions of all the politicians, their demeanours and their varying attitudes. Depending on which party they represented, and how their own particular region had fared, there were mixtures of sadness and dismay, excitement and victory, tempered with grim resignation and ill concealed gloating. Then came the time to find someone or something to blame/praise for the way the voting went. Calls went out for resignations. Bitterness ensued. There was either defeat or victory but not much in the way of genuine selflessness in between.
I got to thinking about how we feel when we disagree with how our own particular country is run and the difference between anarchy and democracy. The normal definition of anarchy is to do with the condition of society, an entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy. In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of government. It can also designate a nation that has no real system. In other words we think of a country with no structure and a country that dissolves into chaos. We imagine riots and turmoil. All things most of us would fear. But if you think about the definition of democracy we think of the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief; elected by the choice of the people. The whole population. The power of the country vested in the people.
But is this really the case? Is there a different way of viewing anarchy versus democracy? Perhaps it is easy to assume we have choice because we know we live under a democratic government , but actually do we really have choice? We still have to follow rules, we are still helpless at times and cannot always live in the way we would really choose. We have to live with certain constraints and can’t always follow the paths we would wish to. We have to ‘toe the line’ while we see others exhibiting signs of greed and power which we cannot challenge. How can this be when we have personally been part of the electoral system and are supposed to have a say in how things are done? Perhaps with a bit more knowledge and courage we could hold more people accountable for their actions when they try and control our banks or our hospitals for example. Perhaps we can think of a new kind of anarchy – a compassionate anarchy. This may require human beings to be willing to be authentic; be independent and dare to rebel in a positive way that helps society question things that cause unrest, and live in a healthier way without hurting others. With a more unstructured but more equal society we would have to work hard to make things work and remain harmonious. Could it be done? A lot of us are used to being in our comfort zones. We sense things are not great but are nervous of trying to create change. We think we are lucky in the main to live the way we live now and this is true.
But there is not really any ‘right’ way. If we live our lives with purpose and follow what we feel is right, do what we really want to do to make our own lives better, make the best of what we have, and be grateful, then we may achieve some balance. Whenever people act with integrity and for the common good, are kind and compassionate and want the best for everyone and not just for themselves and their own immediate world, then we have, automatically, not anarchy, not democracy, but the best conditions for fair and honest living.
Blessings to you.