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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.