It may not seem sane, but then who knows what goes through when a sage sleeps. For only a sage knows whether he is or not.
That brings us to the age old quote:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?Now the role of gaurdians has increased even more. Only, now they are called as regulators and anti-terrorism cells.There is no better example than the story of Gen (Retd) Musharaf. (Did i make a mistake by calling him 'Gen'???) Musharaf it seems was so fixated with ruling Pakistan, and coming out of his self-imposed rule aive that he did the best thing to safe-gaurd his interests - lick USA's arse. So there he was catching Bush's neocon policy with his own hand and lending to the concept of terror, all the while making his place safe. The issue is that no pakistani could actually do anything about it. Now the results of the electin seem to talk a little different, but then look at the election turnout.
Bush can tell back home that he has brought democracy in pakistan, though he was supporting a dictator for a very long time. He gave Musharaf enough money that if the people who ate money survived the regime change, then they can simply retire and still be able to feed 3 generatoins. Musharaf got to enjoy full power for some time. Bush got away with spending more oney than he could ever spend and still say he was good at it. But then after all the gaga any man can say these people went free because there was no one to call foul.
That brings us to the main question, how can we actually root out the evils from coming in? The essence of solving the problem in the so-called democratic form of government is to ensure that nobody comes up with enough clout to actually make any change in the State. Even if some one does come around, the negative pull on him/her will always be so high that nothing positive could be brought out.
More good had come out during the time of Saddam Hussein, than the two Bush administrations. If you dont trust these words, just look at the state of US economy at the end of the 2 Bush eras. Both Bush administrations converted a good US economy to an economy with recession and war expenditure to top the hardships. A more single-minded Saddam government could actually set changes in the lives of the selected people. But a US with the so-called democratic government couldnt control not just one, but 2 lunatics.
Devolution of power, it seems, is a euphemism for ensuring nobody is left powerful enough to do anything positive. At least, instances like Musharaf will logically be not so rampant then. But then, is democracy so nice after all?
From the start it has been so that democracy had existed without a clear definition of it. The oft quoted "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is so meaningless that everyone feels that it is something extremely great, but just out of the reach of their brains. People are still upholding this talk, because still they havent realized that it was just another publicity stunt. Democracy has always been used by power-hungry people to wrest as much power as is possible, because they are afraid of having to loose the little power that they will gain from the exercise. Even more horrible is the state of the select few, who would rather have no power, if they can ensure that no one else will ever get full power.
Is there any government in which a single party has taken full control of the legislature and the executive arms right now? Even if you may some how spell ot one or two names, a deeper analysis will always show that even the so-called single party that gets into power is so bifurcated that even for a good policy, you will find a sizeable number of people opposing it because of outside influence from own party. It is high time we realize, that democracy is only as good as holding out a dictatorship from happening a few more years. The current mechanism is so flawed that a violent show down will occur anytime. The successful States are only those that delay the final break down as much as possible. It is something like saying, "X went down after having one and half pints of wine, while Y couldnt last more than one".