“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they.”
–Jean-Jacque Rousseau, The Social Contract
Since I have been lately shooting my mouth off, both in terms of politics and in terms of Buddhism, it made sense to explore the topic of Buddhism and good government.* Buddhism, at heart, deals not just with enlightenment, but also with living an ethical and moral life. Of course, in the West, we like to focus on the meditation, mantras and all the cool window dressing, but the core of Buddhism is oftentimes more down-to-earth and common sense. Buddhism is based on some simple principles:
- Be kind to others.
- Do not get hung up on yourself.**
So, when someone is in the position of power, this becomes especially important. Both monks and political leaders are pillars of society, and have to be held to an even higher standard. If they indulge in selfish pursuits (ahem), or indulge in their own sense of power, the whole society starts to break down. It’s less about what platform the leader or monk stands for, but how sincere they are as a leader to their people.
When I ponder this point, I often remember the cool quote from the science-fiction book Heretics of Dune:
Rot at the core always spreads outward.
–Waff of Tleilaxu
And this is a true point. No matter what political system, or party platform, someone adheres to, if they cannot execute their duties in good faith, it will lead to disillusionment (people will stop following the government, and will ignore civic duty), and to more opportunities for exploitation by other unscrupulous folks.
In any case, Buddhism does speak on the subject through a variety of texts. In the Pali Canon, the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta (DN 26) describes the Buddha’s ideal leader:
This, dear son, that you, leaning on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting and revering it, doing homage to it, hallowing it, being yourself a Dhamma-banner, a Dhamma-signal, having the Dhamma as your master, should provide the right watch, ward and protection for your own folk, for the army, for the nobles, for vassals and brahmans and householders, for town and country dwellers, for the religious world and for beasts and birds.
So the ideal leader is kind of a father (or mother!) figure for the people, protecting and guiding them. This is known as the Cakkavatti-raja in Pāli language, or the “universal monarch”. Such a person is of such good governance and virtue, that their influence is felt in all directions. In concrete examples, when King Ajatasattu of Magadha attacked King Pasenadi of Kosala, the Buddha expressed sympathy for King Pasenadi in his efforts to defend his people from an unwarranted attack. The Buddha repeatedly called for an end to violence from all sides, but understood that Pasenadi had to do his best as king to defend his people.
The ideal of the king or leader as a pillar of society is played out in very poetic detail in another Buddhist text, the Golden Light Sutra. The sutra is less concrete than what’s found in the Pali Canon, and expresses its teachings through much more symbolism and flowery writing. The main gist of the sutra is that one who enshrines the sutra (and thereby enshrines the Dharma), just as was mentioned in the Pali Canon, will cause society to flourish and set the minds of people at ease and joy. In Chapter 7, “Chapter on the Four Great Guardian Kings”, the Buddha describes this vividly:
…suppose a certain being becomes a king of humans. If he seeks to provide great protection for himself, to experience various regal joys, to exercise his sovereignty with an intention to give all happiness and well-being to every being living in the land, to defeat the entire rival army, to reign over all the land for a great length of time, to be a Dharma king and to free his land from all fear, harm, contagious disease and conflict, that king of humands…will undoubtedly hear the King of Glorious Sutra, the Subline Golden Light. He will respect, revere, venerate and worship bhikshus, bhikshunis, upasakas and upasikas who uphold the King of Glorious Sutras.
In Buddhist politics, there are a couple examples of people who did try to live up to these ideals: King Asoka of India, and Prince Shotoku of Japan. King Asoka is famous for his conquests, and then converting to Buddhism due to guilt over all the people he killed. His edicts, inscribed on pillars all over India, called for people to embrace peace, kindness, and even mundane topics such as vegetarianism. In the case of Prince Shotoku of Japan, he sought to create a Buddhist constitution, which has some notable clauses such as:
IV: The Ministers and officials of the state should make proper behavior their first principle, for if the superiors do not behave properly, the inferiors are disorderly; if inferiors behave improperly, offenses will naturally result. Therefore when lord and vassal behave with propriety, the distinctions of rank are not confused: when the people behave properly the Government will be in good order.
as well as:
VII: …When wise men are entrusted with office, the sound of praise arises. If corrupt men hold office, disasters and tumult multiply. In all things, whether great or small, find the right man and they will be well managed. Therefore the wise sovereigns of antiquity sought the man to fill the office, and not the office to suit the man. If this is done the state will be lasting and the realm will be free from danger.
Here again, the same themes are applied:
- Ethical leaders are what make the system work. Offices of the government should be filled by the most able, not cronies of the leader.
- Everyone has some civic duty to the state as a whole. However, this is not unlike Jean-Jacque Rousseau‘s theories regarding the Social Contract, which in turn is a model used by Western governments. It was also strongly espoused by Confucius as well, whom I recently posted about.
I think deep down, we all kind of already know this. We can all think of leaders who exemplified the traits taught in Buddhism, but I think in modern life we tend to get bogged down with a kind of pessimism, where we lower the standards for leaders to the point that we just say “oh, they’re just being human”. Of course, every leader is human, but for the time he or she assumes office, they have to become something greater than themselves until the term is completed. If they do not, then society suffers.
At the same time, we should also not assume that a particular political model is the cure for an ailing society. Strong, just leadership should be able to work under any condition; however some political models are more effective in curbing the worst behavior of some leaders.
* – Given the state of the world today, we could use a lot more good governance. 
** – Sadly, I think some Buddhist religious figures, as well as lay people, even forget this.
Hello, this blog is about my life as a father, Buddhist and Japanophile / Koreaphile. Any useful information I can pass along will hopefully make the 
True, but there has to be some sort of reciprocity and restraint from the people so that the rulers don’t become hypocritical. It’s not my role to judge anyone else’s moral development.
Does sleeping with a prostitute really mean you’re unfit to govern? Gossip magazine style reporting shouldn’t lead political coverage.
On the other hand, if I’m running a campaign based on “family values” and then don’t display them when I think there aren’t cameras around, I’m probably displaying a fundamental character flaw and lust for power.
I guess what I’m saying is that yes, morals are important, but not in a strict, “Thou shalt not” sense. Politics shouldn’t be a game of Gotcha. Admitting that there will be periodic lapses, is the candidate basically compassionate and trying his or her best? Does the candidate care about the people, or the power?
Hi Mary, welcome to the L8B.
Does sleeping with a prostitute really mean you’re unfit to govern? Gossip magazine style reporting shouldn’t lead political coverage.
Yes. It does mean you’re unfit to govern. You do not place the needs of the people before yourself.
On the other hand, if I’m running a campaign based on “family values” and then don’t display them when I think there aren’t cameras around, I’m probably displaying a fundamental character flaw and lust for power.
Quite so.
If you do not really stand for something, you should not pretend that you do.
I guess what I’m saying is that yes, morals are important, but not in a strict, “Thou shalt not” sense.
In the normal everyday sense, you’re quite right. One is not their brother’s keeper. However, when assuming a role of power, where you dictate the lives of others, you should hold yourself to a much, much higher standard. Buddhism is a religion that emphasizes correct moral conduct, but it is not in a “thou shalt” sense. That’s a misunderstanding left over from our Christian upbringing. Buddhism emphasizes personal responsibility.
Nevertheless, if a leader cannot manage his own conduct, how can he be fit to manage the lives of others? It’s that simple. Like I said, I think we’ve lowered our standards too much, and it’s the responsibility of the people to reinforce them.
I guess I kinda disagree to gerald. I think good government is government that minimizes leaders, is based more on rules and the system. America today, most modern democracies, most successful nations, or frankly imperial china alot of times, was and is not run by a just leader embodying the goodness of the nation and doing the best he can to help the people. They are run by a bunch of mediocre leaders, chosen in part for their mediocrity, rules, and large, faceless bueracracies wedded to the rules. This way, no matter how great a politican or how bad, things basically still hum along in the same way.
And its sounds cynical, but a great leader can cause alot less good than a terrible one can casue harm. Rarely will a modern democracy get an Asoka, but modern democracies tend not reward Joe Stalin’s either. They like Clintons, G HW Bushes, Jacque Chiracs. Guys who won’t break things. And we are better for it.
Disagree?!!!!! Just kidding. Disagree away.
Good government, if we go by literal meaning, should be good “stewardship”, not “effective curtailing of abuses”. The danger of rules and system is that it becomes it’s own force, regardless of whether it benefits people anymore or not. The interest lies in preservation of the rule of law, not on the intent “does it bring welfare to society”.
I am reminded of a similar quote in Children of Dune:
Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery. The most important element of government, therefore, is the method of choosing leaders.
You’re right, a single good leader can’t do it all himself, but his example inspires others. Likewise, a leader who is mediocre and makes a fool of himself in public inspires people to subvert the government, or simply not support it through apathy. It’s not so much the actions of the good leader that matter, but what he inspires in others.
Good leadership, either at a political level, or even in the workplace, is less about action, then sincerity of purpose, employing the right people for the right job, and proper goals. The bigger the responsibility, the more important this becomes.
When someone has their finger on the “big red button”, you can see how much more important this is.
I still disagree, gerald. Rules can become their own force, that is why we need politicians, not jsut bueracrats, to adjust things. But the politicians does not need to be a great leader to make changes, especially over the long run. A moderately effective group of leaders, over time, can enact as much change as a great one. And they also have the time and hindsight to fix the mistakes of the moderately ineffective ones. There were alot of great leaders in the early nineties in the world, in South Africa and the former Soviet Union. And we in the US had Bush I and Clinton. And yet we were still the better governed nation. Why? Because we had that system, those rules, the government offices that was better supported, integrated, and adjusted into society.
Another example: How many great leaders has Norway had lately? Not many right? They are dull, boring technocrats who are not even interesting enough to want to do something scandalous for the most part. And yet Norway, or its similair neighbor (though don’t tell them that) Sweden are among the best governed places in the world and nicest place to live. Its the system, not the great men.
Also, I think the Dune quote is dead wrong. The thing is the men who administer the machinery usually can’t subordinate the machine to his will. Even ones like Nixon or Bush who aggressively tried to ended up with epic fails. The president can’t even put his finger on the big red button without going through several fail safes. Thats why the rules matter. The rules constrain the administrator.
GF, I have very strong reservations about mixing personal beliefs and politics.
Granted every politician will develop their own style of governing based on their personal beliefs, though I think they should reserve some of their beliefs when it comes to the public interest.
As much as I would love for governments to use Buddhist principles when governing, this must be a choice made by the constituents of the community.
This is why I consider the label “Buddhist Country” to be just as dangerous as the label “Christian Country” or “Muslim Country”.
All Western governments gain and retain power through and by consensus. As such, all representatives within government must adhere to the will of the people irrespective of their personal beliefs. Or, at least, be willing to bend their personal rules on occasion.
Buddhism allows a lot of flexibility for laity, provided they do not violate the principles that all sects adhere to. But, there are times when this is not enough.
Would Buddhist principles apply in a state like Vermont? Maybe.
Would they apply in a state like Nevada? Home of Sin City? I don’t think so.
Yes, Herbert was right in that good government does depend on personal qualities of those who govern.
But “Good” is always a matter of perspective, and a government is no good to the governed if they disagree with that government by consensus.
“Good” : It’s a path.
“Belief” : It’s a choice
“Government” : Has to walk the line between the two.
Erg, Eksith, great comments both. Plenty of food for thought.
Erg:
You provided a good example of a functioning democracy, but there are plenty of examples of dysfunctional ones too. The Phillipines for example have been a stable (barring Pres. Marcos) democracy for 100 years. The Americans setup the democratic system there.
However, Phillipine culture is such that the country is ruled by a handful of ruling families. Look up the history of Philippine presidents and you’ll see the same family names over and over. The congress is no better.
In India, they’re democratic institution has remained stable, but the parties and elections are often marred by caste/ethnic violence. They also suffer from seperationist groups and other challenges.
Democracy is not a fix for problems in society. In fact, it doesn’t offer much on its own.
If you study the works of the greek philosopher, Polybius, he wrote about how governments corrupt into “bad versions”. Monarchies become tyrants. Aristocracies become oligarchies. Democracies (in the Athenian sense, at least) descend into mob rule.
America too suffers from a decline in its own institutions I feel. Like I quote before, rot at the core spreads outward. Once some corruption is tolerated, it just allows more. Democracy as a system doesn’t fix this if the people on the inside have no incentive to fix it.
Eksith:
You bring up a good point; would a “Buddhist” government be any better? Honestly, I have my doubts too. My “Religion and Power” talks about how power inevitably corrupts, so even a Buddhist government would likewise corrupt.
Again though, the problem is that any institution, no matter how good it looks on paper, will corrupt and turn bad when the wrong people are in power.
raSee, Gerald, your missing my point. Look how well, for example, imperial China did vs. Japan for most of its history. Japan was a strongman style feudal government. Leaders mattered above all else. Imperial china had a massive government apparatus which switched out emperor. (gross simplification, but roll with me). Neither were even vaguely democratic. But the bueracratic system was much more successful at providing stability and prosperity for the public. I am not advocating democracy as a panacea but strong rule of law and strong institutions as the vital component of effective governance. Strong institutions and the rule of law can survive mediocre or even bad leaders. Without them everything a great leader does can be lost in a few days time.
Well, If there ever was a poster-child for nepotism, the Philippines would be it.
The success of any government and governing system has as much to do with the dominant culture of a country (or whichever group is better armed) as it does with the individual system of government.
Certain cultures adapt easily to Democracy. Others do not.
Take Sri Lanka, for example…
It’s officially called : The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
That title denotes a composite of three seperate systems of government all molded into one.
And it works for us… For the most part.
Plenty of Sinhalese are critical of the government, myself included. Many more Tamils (the second major ethnicity in Sri Lanka) are critical as well, however it isn’t the system we criticise the most; Rather the individuals involved in the system.
The reason why there are issues with the government is that being a “Buddhist Country” it has tried to impose what are supposed to be Buddhist principles on a population that isn’t entirely open to the idea.
In the process, they’ve managed to completely violate those very same principles (few have noticed this glaring error).
While being too focused on the big picture, they’ve lost sight of the small, but ever so significant detail, that choice plays a big part in ethics…
This ties very well into your “Religion and Power” post…
Rule by consensus means the whole population must be involved. Those who were not Buddhist or Sinhalese were, for the most part, left out of the picture when the “consensus” was defined. It’s one of the big reasons why there’s been a civil war there since 1984.
Which is why, no matter what you or I deem moral and correct, it must be a collective choice or else it must never become law.
Morality was legislated before.
Back then, it was called “Prohibition”. The reason why it was a miserable failure is as I said before … “Good” : Is a path. It’s also a perception.
Many chose not to walk down that path as they didn’t share the same perception.
Well, this will be my last post on the subject, as I’d like to move on.
But thank you both for contributing to a great discussion.
Erg:
I see your point. I did allude to this too in the blog post, toward the very bottom. Good political models definitely curb bad behavior, but I think that’s only half of the coin, so to speak.
Eksith:
You’re right. I too prefer the collective choice in such matters. I certainly do appreciate the checks-and-balances that keep people in line. I just wish we’d elect people who took their responsibility more seriously, and governed under better, personal, principles.
Also, just a quick note, please understand I am not advocating a Buddhist country or political system per se. I can see that easily turning into another bad theocracy. It’s just on an individual level, I want to see leaders employ Buddhist ethics and wisdom if they could.
Looking forward to your replies…
GF
Righto!
And I do agree that individuals in government can certainly use some Buddhist ethics. But, again, this has to be a personal choice.
…Eagerly awaiting for you to open the next can of worms
I am lost on logic here who created the systems and checks and balances for mediocre leaders to do well? Were this created by other equally mediocre leaders or meritocratic able leaders, in the first place. To get to basics? Most systems of leadership and governance were mostly derived from religious directions to begin. God expounded and man followed, the other will be in the wrong direction, I suppose, and ‘that’ adapts well to survive. It is for the good and intelligent to expose such Self Righteous leaders and systems for the Greaters’ benefit. Righteousness must prevail to benefit this World and true Human Existence otherwise Life, for any individual, would be worthless to lead and Meaningless! God Bless!