Anarchy and Democracy

OK, here is some food for thought: Is Democracy the first step towads anarchy?

In order to answer this question we should go back to why and how Democracy came into being as an idea: In Ancient Athens, of course. Now, in order to understand democracy, you must understand the ancient (and most likely modern) Greek. There is a common characteristic that underlies the personality of most Greeks: they were, are, and will probably always be stubborn and resistant to any authority telling them what to do.

Perhaps it was fine for the ancient Egyptians to be ruled by a godlike ruler, the Pharaoh, for the Persians to have a mighty emperor, but not for the unruly ancient Greeks, no way! They wanted to have a say on who rules them and how long they would be ruled by that individual. They wanted to be able to punish their ruler for making the wrong decisions by toppling him from power. Each Greek actually deep down wanted to be the one in power!

If it was at all possible, Greeks would thrive in an anarchist environment. They don't respond well to authority, rules and regulations. Even today, to a Greek, the law is merely a suggestion, not a binding force. Only the dire need for collective safety forced the Ancient Greeks to form some sort of government, and they tried to make it as painless as possible, ergo: Democracy.

It's a miracle that the idea of Democracy took such a widespread hold over the Earth in modern days. Most other peoples believe that it is a very haphazard and inefficient form of government. Even the U.S. who purports to be democratic has watered down the original idea by turning their government into what is more of an oligarchy than a true Democracy. As a matter of fact, oligarchies are much more common than true Democracies and for a good reason: Power is something people want to hold on to and pass it down only to their own families or trusted heirs.

True Democracy - one person one vote - is only one step away from anarchism. The will of the majority only loosely rules the minority, who given half a chance, would take over at the first opportunity. Only the majority's control of the power, such as the army and the police, stops the system from complete collapse.

Anarchism is deemed undesirable for some obvious reasons, the safety of others and the need for some order in society being the major ones. Democracy is the next best thing for the unruly individual who still retains a modicum of responsibility and Oligarchy is the next step towards the concentration of power to a few.

It seems that the pendulum has been swinging both ways in the past between the two extremes: dictatorships and total anarchy being the two end points. For some reason, dictatorships appear much easier to achieve than total anarchy.

Given the historical experience, once more we can conclude that the ancient Athenian Greeks had it right. A society needs government and order, but not too much government and order. Checks and balances are necessary to keep the power from concentrating in too few hands, and the right of the people to get rid of a bad leader is paramount. The democratic system allows for the freedom of the people, while still safeguarding society from extreme behavior.

Perhaps there are better systems of government to be found. Perhaps there is a utopic system of equal treatment and increased social conscience that may be developed in the future. If it does not take into consideration the two extreme forces - the need for people to possess power on the one hand and their equal need to be free and unfettered - it would be doomed to failure.