present moment
could command the respect of the civilised world. In Buddhist
literature, Chakravarthi, the lord of the world, is mentioned in many
places. He is variously mentioned as Sakra and Sakvithi among others.
Though he is considered to be a mythical character, many scholars have
argued that he was actually King Darius of Iran. A great reformer and
organiser, Darius thoroughly revised the Persian system of
administration and legal code. His revisions of the legal code revolved
around laws of evidence, deposits, bribery and assault.
It was through the organisation of this empire that he became the true
restorer of the heritage of Cyrus the Great. His organising of
provinces and fixing of tributes was described by Herodotus, evidently
from good official sources.
Although
Alexander the Great was able to bridge the gap between Europe and Asia
for a short period after Darius, no other world leader upto the present moment
could command the respect of the civilised world.
Darius lived at
the time of the dawn of civilisation. He was able to extend his
authority and win respect, not necessarily by conquest but by
administrative and diplomatic skills, of the entire civilised world
including parts of China.
By then humans
had entered the Iron Age and slave labour had entered the production
system while women lost their prime position in society. Strangely, in
India, there was a struggle led by Buddha, Nigantanatha and others
against this step back. Darius, according to Buddhist texts, was
sympathetic to Buddha’s struggle against reactionary beliefs and
caste/creed discrimination.
Honest smile
Of course in
history there have been bourgeoisie democratic leaders such as Cromwel,
Napoleon and Abraham Lincoln who brought new spirit into the march of
mankind. But I do not believe that they were able to command respect
among the masses outside of Europe or America. So was Lenin the great
leader of socialist revolution, and all educated men respect him. Marx
was voted as the man of the millennium by an organised poll, but less
than 500 attended his funeral in London and no newspaper made any news
out of the event.
But here is
Obama, son of Hussein (a Muslim), black, and president-elect who, with
his honest smile and great speeches won the heart of millions
throughout the world. I do not believe he is a Chakravarthi who could
change the world, certainly not. As Engels said:
Capable surgeon
Obama was
brought to power with the active participation of American corporate
capital. That means the American bourgeoisie wanted a good, capable
surgeon who could cure the fatal sickness of the system and give it a
new lease of life. They were wise enough to see that reactionary
republicans could make the matter worse. Someone once said that
democracy cannot work under corporate capital, but the latter could use
democracy to select the intelligent specialist who could do a quick
repair job.
What can Obama
do to satisfy those who are expecting a change? The only path he could
take is the path of state capitalism. State capitalism could be used
not only in America but also in the international plane. The IMF, the
WB and the WTO should be used to monitor all investments and the so
called development projects as suggested by Joseph Stiegleis. The trio
should be used to check ecology balance, environment hazards and world
food production.
Immediate steps should be taken to bring down barriers to migration and the flow of labour. Steps could be taken to convert the United Nations assembly into a true democratic assembly. That could be a means to abolish nuclear weapons and war as a method to resolve conflicts. Every aspect of democracy should be promoted in all dimensions.
I do not believe he could at least be a good state capitalist, but it is a pleasant dream for the moment.