Why don't politicians stand up against bully from their own party?

Political cult is not a new phenomenon. History has ample examples of political cults that not only rule any specific political party but also captivate an entire country with their charisma and rhetoric. Often, these political leaders develop a cult-like following, and they attain the status of messiah or become a divine figure for their followers, just like God. There are good examples like Gandhi, and there are bad examples like Hitler, but one thing is clear: political cult is not new, and it seems that we have not learned our lessons from the dangers of harboring political cult. No matter what its origin or intention is, a political cult ultimately turns into relentless bullying without exception. The leader who attains such a status doesn't like any dissent or alternative views; rather, any dissent or objection is treated as defiance or rebellion. Often, other leaders and supporters surrender to this political bullying. Such leaders have no need to be objective, accountable, or transparent, as no one, absolutely no one, from their support sphere is willing to stand up against any action taken by them or any word spoken by them. This begs a question: why don't politicians or supporters stand up against a bully from their own party? There can be only a few reasons for this; most politicians are scared of losing power, and are spineless and opportunistic, who want to cling to power at any cost. 

Advocating for their own vision and agenda is a prerogative of every leader, and there is nothing wrong with it. However, taking the entire administration hostage and stifling any dissent is not leadership or democracy; it is a dictatorship and bullying. This is what is happening in many countries, including the USA. There are just a couple of voices in each political party that dominate, and the rest all meekly surrender. If someone needs an endorsement of the Prime Minister or the President for a local election that should be centered only around local issues, there is a serious political cult problem that needs to be addressed. In any dictatorship, power is centralized, decision-making is centralized, and everything must go through the dictator or the dictator's coitre. One cannot displease the dictator and get away with it, but true democracy cannot and should not function like this. In any decentralized federal structure, every election serves a different purpose and addresses a different constituency. Presidential election is different than a ward election, which is different than a governor election, which is different than a senator or congressman election. The names and terminologies can differ, but this is how different democratic governments are structured, where there is a separation of powers, and independent institutions exist. However, if political cult and bullying dominate, these structures crumble, and one gets into a democratic dictatorship, where elections serve to fulfill the ego of one person who dominates the discourse. This is no longer a democracy but an authoritarian regime. 

Whenever and wherever political cult and bullying prevail, it illustrates the point that elected officials of that administration and party are a spineless and power-hungry bunch. When power is centralized, and one person's endorsement means everything, there is neither separation of powers nor individual accountability. But the main tragedy and worrisome part is that people are equally enabling this degradation. People are not only participating in this debacle but also actively making sure that this system becomes a new norm. Democracy is messy and imperfect, but this does not mean authoritarian or elected dictatorship is better. Any authoritarian regime is more harmful than a democratically elected government, as it stifles dissent, curbs fundamental rights, and encourages hate and resentment to harbor polarization. This is why it is dangerous when people and elected officials don't stand against political cult and bullying. It is dangerous when we allow narcissistic leaders to take center stage and control the narrative rather than working on our differences through discussions and constructive criticisms. People and politicians are trading dangerous waters in many parts of the world, and I hope they know what they are doing. I hope true democracy survives this political cult and bullying phase. If not, we all know what the consequences are, and I am not willing to go back to those dark days when the world witnessed immeasurable harm inflicted by democratically elected dictators. 

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

Is God Really So Insecure?

This article is not about God; everyone has their own understanding of the concept of God. There are many religions out there that tell us different descriptions of God and His powers, and all this has created a certain image of God in people's minds. I want to talk about the general concept of God and its attributes, which are more or less the same in most organized religions. I am not going to discuss specifically any particular religion or faith. If we look at the normal way of preaching in any religion, we are told about some superpower that supposedly created us and the universe around us, and also controls our life and surroundings (the entire universe). This concept of God as a creator and controller of our universe is common in most organized religions; the description of God or its qualities differs slightly from religion to religion.

We are the most dominant animal species on this planet and also the most curious one. We don't know anything about our future, but we are very curious to know about it. Many times, we don't know the reason for many things happening around us, but our mind is curious to know why a particular thing is happening, is there any reason behind it? We have created many concepts and theories to satisfy our curiosity, and these theories helped many people to feel that they can get answers to many of these questions that trouble their minds. All these theories or religions and their hypothesis about God or the origin of the universe or the purpose of human life helped many people to get peace of mind, and control their anxiety about uncertainty in life. We all need some direct (laws) or indirect controls (concept of morality, God, sin, etc.) to check our behavior so that we don't behave like other animals and maintain peace in our civilized society.

Most religions believe that there is a creator of this universe who controls everything related to this universe. This statement is difficult to prove, but it can be considered as a harmless assumption. They further say that we need to please this creator and serve him (yes, him). So far it's fine, then there are only certain ways one can please their master, and if we don't do this or follow rules set by him, there will be serious consequences (like burning our body in fire, some inhuman tortures, there are very graphic descriptions of these punishments in many scriptures). The problem is that all religions claim their God to be supreme and the only controller of the universe, and one should only worship him (most of them are male gods). If followers worship any other God, then they have to face those harsh punishments either during their current life. If not during the current life, then after death, and if you escape that, then in the next birth. The threat looms continuously, so better to comply with their rules and follow their path. Now the big question is, can a kind, merciful, loving God behave like some ruthless dictator? Then what is the difference between God and so many insecure dictators or dictatorial regimes? After all, if there is only one god, why is he so insecure about his position? Why is he scared of competition? Do people even think about these things?

If a ruler, any government, or a person forces citizens of their kingdom or country to follow certain rules that are concerned with their pleasure, and if they force their ideas of what is right or wrong, then they are called dictators. Do we mean that God is also another dictator? Who is kind only to people who please him and ruthless with others? If not, then why do these commandments, rituals, and many of these scriptures sound so threatening? We don't threaten our kids to burn in fire if they fail to say good morning to us every day, but try to forget your daily prayers and check for the consequences in the rule books of any religion. How come God can be so cruel to his own children? Please think about it. Does God need to be so insecure and ruthless? Why is the picture painted as kind and loving on one side and a ruthless, heartless dictator on the other side? If this is the best description the organized religion can come up with for their brand ambassador, they need to modify it. 

I honestly believe that all this propaganda was a well-thought-out marketing strategy by organized religion to sell their product and create a loyal customer base. No doubt that this was a very brilliant marketing strategy, a masterstroke. I think it's one of the best marketing strategies used to date. I see Apple using a similar strategy very successfully to dominate the market. They have great products, and they used this strategy to their advantage to establish their brand and conquer the market. They want their customers to use their product and their software and buy apps only from them. Their customers should walk on the path paved by them; any other things are not permitted but rather is prohibited. Sounds very familiar with what organized religion tells us to do. My only suggestion is to think over what we are being told to do or to follow. Question others and our own hypothesis, get satisfied with the answers you get, and then only accept the things. A teacher from my daughter's philosophy class told me, "Don't be sheeple (sheep people), be people." Don't get herded in a group, don't accept anything blindly, don't get bullied by anyone, but have your own opinion, learn to respect others, and examine and analyze things before you accept them.

Thanks for reading, and please share your views.

Reference:
1. http://www.speakingtree.in/public/spiritual-blogs/seekers/god-and-i/why-should-a-god-be-so-insecure

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)