# Is Democracy Approved In Sikhism?



## noor_e_khalsa (May 15, 2008)

Democracy as taught in schools is "Government of the people, by the people and for the people".  I am curious to know if democracy type thing is allowed in Sikhism. According to me democratic rule is not a way of Sikh living. Please comment.


----------



## Randip Singh (May 15, 2008)

noor_e_khalsa said:


> Democracy as taught in schools is "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". I am curious to know if democracy type thing is allowed in Sikhism. According to me democratic rule is not a way of Sikh living. Please comment.


 


noor_e_khalsa said:


> Democracy as taught in schools is "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". I am curious to know if democracy type thing is allowed in Sikhism. According to me democratic rule is not a way of Sikh living. Please comment.


 
Approved, endorsed and the ideal for SIkhi….how do we know this:

1) Guru Gobind Singh ji bows to the Panj Pyarey (accepting equality amongst his Sangat), he also accepts consensus or Gurmatta on several occaisions.

2) Gurmatta - or consensus is a central principle of Sikhi

3) Guru Granth and Guru Panth - also accepted principles of Sikhi.

4) Panj Pyarey are (who are chosen to lead community) are elected from the community by the community.

there are many more examples of this.​PS On a side note - Sant Matt groups where a Central Saint is the leader of the organisation eg GNSSJ, Namdhari, Radaoswami, Rarowali etc etc are actually incompatible with Sikh principles because the leaders are unelected.​


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (May 15, 2008)

Very nice ji.  I never thought of the political implications of Gursikhi like that.


----------



## noor_e_khalsa (May 20, 2008)

well... think in a different way... in simple words democracy is rule of majority over minority... good people are always less in number bad people form the majority.... bad people rule by democracy......
-Panj pyare are nominated not elected
-Gurmatta is concensus on topics pertaining to sikh religion... gurmatta cannot be passed on issues other than sikhism (see Rehat Maryada published by SGPC).... 
-Guru Granth Sahib ji was nominated by the tenth Guru Himself....
-Guru Panth nominates or select people or rule or solution by its relevance not by majority or minority voting...
Its a proven fact that whenever the system of majority winning is applied, sinister politics take up the scene... Until the jathedars were selected on their merits and service to Sikhism and mankind, the Sikh thrones (takhats) were a revered place for justice... When election started, jathedars started pleasing everyone to get votes and mandates.... SGPC is corrupt becoz its having election system...


----------



## noor_e_khalsa (May 20, 2008)

(On Side note).......Also our Guru jis were never elected....that means sikhism is wrong way of faith becoz it never followed the process of election to elect their leader.... think...


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (May 20, 2008)

> *in simple words democracy is rule of majority over minority...
> good people are always less in number bad people form the majority....
> bad people rule by democracy......
> 
> ...



Yes, this is the most correct view.  Sikhi goes against the grain of the fake world, while encompassing the best and highest aspirations, it could never be held hostage to whims of a misguided majority.

To be honest, while there are many good things in a democratic system, democracy is a political failure as we see the encroaching fascist tendancies to favor the corporate rich and powerful, even to committing atrocities and injustices in the "name of the people."


----------



## choochoochan (Nov 11, 2013)

Which other _better_ way is there besides democracy? It is flawed, but as of now, it's better than anything else we have had thus far.


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 11, 2013)

choochoochan said:


> Which other _better_ way is there besides democracy? It is flawed, but as of now, it's better than anything else we have had thus far.




if indeed it actually existed........


----------



## AngloSikhPeace (Nov 11, 2013)

choochoochan said:


> Which other _better_ way is there besides democracy? It is flawed, but as of now, it's better than anything else we have had thus far.


Lottocracy/demarchy (leaders chosen from the population at random) could work quite well if the selection system were computerised and weighted in favour of skilled, well-qualified individuals. But it would only be possible in an advanced, smoothly-functioning society, perhaps one of the Nordic countries.


----------



## Kamala (Nov 11, 2013)

Obviously it is permitted, don't look at India's as an example lol


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 11, 2013)

choochoochan said:


> Which other _better_ way is there besides democracy? It is flawed, but as of now, it's better than anything else we have had thus far.



China's Pseudo communism or whatever you call did and still doing much better than so called democracies



> *UN official praises China's poverty reduction*
> 
> _10-17-2013 20:33  BJT_
> 
> ...


----------



## choochoochan (Nov 11, 2013)

AngloSikhPeace said:


> Lottocracy/demarchy (leaders chosen from the population at random) could work quite well if the selection system were computerised and weighted in favour of skilled, well-qualified individuals. But it would only be possible in an advanced, smoothly-functioning society, perhaps one of the Nordic countries.



What is the definition of a "smoothly-functioning society"? What if the people chosen don't want to do it? i recently got picked to some part of some committee at work, and it really ****** me off, cos i didn't want to do it. I think that could backfire.


----------



## choochoochan (Nov 11, 2013)

kds1980 said:


> China's Pseudo communism or whatever you call did and still doing much better than so called democracies



China doesn't have a proper legal system. So that's a hefty minus point for me. 

Communism, does have its attractiveness. The best govt, should be comprised of all these different political ideologies. A true mixed economy.


----------



## kds1980 (Nov 11, 2013)

choochoochan said:


> China doesn't have a proper legal system. So that's a hefty minus point for me.
> 
> Communism, does have its attractiveness. The best govt, should be comprised of all these different political ideologies. A true mixed economy.



Of course China has many flaws.Its system may not work in developed nation
But for many undeveloped and developing nations may be it is more productive than democracy.A poor man does not need how many rights he has on paper. What he needs is government which eradicate his poverty and improve his life standard


----------



## choochoochan (Nov 12, 2013)

kds1980 said:


> Of course China has many flaws.Its system may not work in developed nation
> But for many undeveloped and developing nations may be it is more productive than democracy.A poor man does not need how many rights he has on paper. What he needs is government which eradicate his poverty and improve his life standard



That is true, but once that has been achieved, won't you agree that such a man deserves his "freedom"? Actually, a poor man does not need know his rights, or rather, he wouldn't care, but he's still should be entitled to those rights.


----------



## Ishna (Nov 12, 2013)

I don't get politics. I vote for a benevolent dictatorship! But as for the title question, Sikhi is a way of life, it shouldn't have an opinion on a form of government outside of itself.


----------



## choochoochan (Nov 12, 2013)

Ishna said:


> I don't get politics. I vote for a benevolent dictatorship! But as for the title question, Sikhi is a way of life, it shouldn't have an opinion on a form of government outside of itself.



If it's a way of life, it must have _some_ opinion? No?


----------



## Ishna (Nov 12, 2013)

Sikhi doesn't claim to be everything - religion, legal system, political framework. IMO.


----------



## roopsidhu (Nov 12, 2013)

it should be but its not


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 12, 2013)

roopsidhu said:


> it should be but its not



Roopsidhuji, 

could you explain?


----------



## AngloSikhPeace (Nov 12, 2013)

choochoochan said:


> If it's a way of life, it must have _some_ opinion? No?


The way I see it, the 'Sikh' form of government should be one that's based on Sikh principles and beliefs. Rather than merely a Sikh state for Sikhs with a Sikh king or a Sikh PM, with all the legislating done by granthis or something, the Sikh state should be a secular one, but based on the principles and philosophy of our Gurus. This has always been the case, there has never been a single, prescribed government type for Sikhs. In Guruji's times, Sikhs had a theocracy. In the Banda Singh Bahadur period, there was a sort of communist/collectivist agrarian rule. The Misls were a very loose confederacy. the Sikh Raj was an absolute monarchy.

By 'based on Sikh principles and beliefs' I mean that whilst the state is outwardly a secular one like the rest, its ideas and ideology should be constructed with Guruji's guidance in mind. For example, Sikhi emphasises over and over again the importance of Sewa, selfless service to the community (not just the poor, or the needy, or other Sikhs, but the whole world). In a Sikh state, therefore, projects such as an NHS, or an effective armed forces, or community service/environmental work for the young, would all be instituted. Guruji also teaches self-determination and the right of everyone to have a voice in the Sangat. So a Sikh state should hold elections and adopt a government type that allows participation in politics for everyone from the common classes to the rich. 

In fact, rather than merely hoping for some sort of Sikh Khalistan, we should work towards persuading society as a whole to honour Guruji's teachings in this way. There is nothing communal or intolerant in this, we are not asking others to follow our religion, but merely trying to persuade others to agree with our points of view (as is normal for everyone to do). A country may be majority-Christian, or majority-Hindu, or even majority-Muslim, but if they agree with and implement the same progressive values that Guruji teaches then that is a victory for Khalsa Raj. I personally think that this will be the way Khalsa Raj is achieved: not merely by the expansion of our religion and way of life, but by the expansion of the philosophies and ideas contained in our religion.

Anyway, that's just my two cents on the matter.


----------



## Ishna (Nov 12, 2013)

AngloSikhPeace ji



> the Sikh state should be a secular one, but based on the principles and philosophy of our Gurus.


 
This is an oxy{censored}.  You can't have a secular government based on a spiritual philosophy.

Also I'm not sure one can institutionalise 'seva'.  It's not really seva anymore, as seva is done with a voluntary spirit.  You can't govern or institutionalise that.  I may have missed your point though.

I'm of the very strong opinion that "religion" and government should be kept far, far, FAR apart.

Khalistan is not a Sikh issue but a Punjabi cultural one IMHO.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Nov 12, 2013)

Ishna said:


> AngloSikhPeace ji
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ishna ji i feel you misunderstood Anglosikhpeace ji ..


----------



## AngloSikhPeace (Nov 12, 2013)

Ishna said:


> AngloSikhPeace ji
> 
> 
> 
> This is an oxy{censored}.  You can't have a secular government based on a spiritual philosophy.



When I say 'secular' I mean in the same way that the USA or the European countries are secular: they allow full rights and freedoms for all the religions and points of view, but their laws are, deep down, based upon the Christian 10 Commandments. Some of those have fallen by the wayside (eg there are rarely laws against idolatry, and 'coverting thy neighbour' is quite popular), but that's where the ideas originated. 
So in a state based on the Sikh religion, there would be full rights for people of all creeds. But the laws of the country would be set out in a way that honours and encourages the values of the Gurus: compassion, mercy, determination, contentment, justice and equality.



> Also I'm not sure one can institutionalise 'seva'.  It's not really seva anymore, as seva is done with a voluntary spirit.  You can't govern or institutionalise that.  I may have missed your point though.


I'm not talking about institutionalising seva itself, like having langar halls run by the state or something. But instead, creating and supporting institutionalised systems based on the ethos of seva. Like the NHS, or the National Park system, or the police services. All of those are institutions that rely upon voluntary efforts (in addition to paid labour of course), depend upon the selflessness of the people working for them, and serve the community at large.



> I'm of the very strong opinion that "religion" and government should be kept far, far, FAR apart.


It is possible on one level to separate Church and State. The US Constitution is pretty clear about it, as is the French one. But there are two problems with that.
1. All states, even secular ones, are based upon a set of ideas and ideologies. Where do these ideas come from? Thinkers and philosophers. And their ideas, their thoughts, are always influenced by their religious beliefs (or lack of belief). The French Revolution was influenced by atheism and other radical anti-religious movements, for example. The American Revolution was influenced by more moderate religious believers, such as the Deists. The  Glorious Revolution in England had a very strong Protestant undercurrent, and the earlier English Civil War too featured heavy involvement by fanatical Puritans. Whilst you can make a state behave in a neutral manner to different religious believers, you can't separate ideology from religion.
2. Where does that leave the UK? Despite having no separation of Church and State the UK is one of the freest countries in the world, definitely with more religious freedom than the USA.



> Khalistan is not a Sikh issue but a Punjabi cultural one IMHO.


I personally don't really find it a religious issue, but it is exclusively a Sikh national issue. You won't find Muslim Khalistanis in west Panjab.
Anyway, I'm definitely not strongly in favour of Khalistan. I range between 'it would be a complete catastrophe' and 'it might be necessary, but it would still be bad'. I prefer the idea of self-determination (ie the right to referenda on independence and other issues) for the Panjabi people rather than an exclusively Sikh state.

But anyway, that's a whole different debate.


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 12, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> Ishna ji i feel you misunderstood Anglosikhpeace ji ..



well then thats two of us that have misunderstood, why should a Sikh government enforce Sikh values? Should Sikh values even be enforced? Surely the best Sikh government would be one that governed well, and had equality for all, or we risk going down the road of the taliban.

A Hindu, Muslim, or even a Satanist should all be happy and fulfilled in an ideal Sikh government, the only way to do that would be govern and not dictate.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Nov 12, 2013)

harry haller said:


> well then thats two of us that have misunderstood, why should a Sikh government enforce Sikh values?




Anglosikhpeace  nowhere says   enforcement of Sikh valves .


----------



## AngloSikhPeace (Nov 12, 2013)

harry haller said:


> well then thats two of us that have misunderstood, why should a Sikh government enforce Sikh values? Should Sikh values even be enforced? Surely the best Sikh government would be one that governed well, and had equality for all, or we risk going down the road of the taliban.
> 
> A Hindu, Muslim, or even a Satanist should all be happy and fulfilled in an ideal Sikh government, the only way to do that would be govern and not dictate.


When have I said that?

A government based on Sikhi should not legislate or force the individual people to accept Sikh values. But its own decisions and efforts should be based on the Sikh philosophy. Look at the examples I've given. They aren't things like 'the government should tell people not to cut their hair' or 'the government should outlaw cow slaughter' or 'the government should make Gurbani mandatory in schools.' Instead, I am saying that a Sikh government should support and create institutions that agree with the philosophy of Sikhi. Like an effective healthcare system. Or working environmental protections. Or a truly representative and fair democracy.


----------



## Ishna (Nov 12, 2013)

Thanks so much for expanding your ideas ASP Ji.

I agree that government should be based on a good ethical framework.  Sikhi provides that par excellance.  But to call it a 'Sikh state' or a 'government based on Sikh values' is dangerous IMHO.  Can't it jsut be a government based on the very best values, without mention of religion?  The moment you say 'Sikh values' the whole thing becomes subjective - look at how many different kinds of Sikhs you find already, and different types of Sikhism!!  We can't even agree on one Maryada, and that's just for US!

Government should be blind to religion and should be guided by purely secular, universal ethics applicable to the entire planet.

Again I may be misunderstanding you and if so I apologise.


----------



## choochoochan (Nov 13, 2013)

This "secular" sikh state, would it be a democratically elected one, or a mainly theocratic one? 

The area of jurisprudence is one area that may aid in some understanding of this. There are many schools of thoughts, but i am more inclined to adhere to Dworkin's thesis on the whole issue. The crux of the whole issue is : why would anyone observe the rule of law? Ethical reasons? Natural law? By that, surely all humans follow the same ethical code? That's after all, what makes us human. In that sense, i don't think it necessary for a religiosity to be imposed on anything, the ethical code or whatever. Only in primitive civilizations, would this be necessary. None of our current civilizations are that primitive anymore. Our ethical code, every one's, Muslim, Atheist, Christian, Sikh..should more or less be the same.


----------

