Monarchy and Democracy...

Those who came to mind were some of the ancient crazies, and the quasi-monarchs of many dictatorships. You're so right about the corruption in democracies. There should be a better way than both, but I don't think we'll find it as long as people remain human!

[B]Hi! Gad![/B],I love the way you have shortened my name for ease of reference. True, when it comes to "safety" of the individual, the guarantees are automatically higher in a democracy. First, were it a monarchy in India (say, and by implication in most civilized countries) we wouldn't be able to discuss this openly. But in India's history at least very few monarchs have been that bad, or at least we are not left with many valid corroborated records as to how each one was. I look at it as in a monarchy the numbers embezzling public money and funds going scot free could be less? In a democracy, self aggrandizement and swallowing public money with impunity has become the order, at least in our country(India). Almost we hear/read of some scam or the other. There is nothing like punishment, reprisal, or anything of the sort. If only God feels something intolerable has been done He does some justice. Often we do not see anything perceptible happening to these people. I was thinking of monarchy not because it is safe- it definitely is not. But the numbers of people wanting to drain the exchequer are less definitely?

Right there, when the family of the monarch is involved, the odds against getting justice are upped. You have also provided a very apt example of Kovalan. By bringing up the present day, politiacal powers doing the same thing, you have once again expressed doubts on justice ever being done. So, monarchy or democracy Justice for all is a mere slogan. Perhaps this intractability of Justice is designed in by God!?!

Yes in these present days, if we get the justice, then we are really lucky. Even if we need to go to police station due to any reason, we need to pay money, but if the culprit gives more money, then he will win and the justice will be in doldrums.

The right of even an accused to defend himself sometimes goes in favor of a criminal. There are several cases where everyone in the know about a crime knows that the crime has been committed by so and so, but just for lack of incriminating evidence he is let off by the court. This is because democracy is driven mainly by procedures, and just an improper or careless presentation of the case by the police is sufficient for the case to be dismissed.

I understand that the problem with monarchs is that they are generally despotic and if a wrong idea about an innocent man gets into his head there is a possibility of he/she being punished for no reason. In this respect democracy scores, but what disturbs(ed) me is we seen in India day in and day out that the loooooong rope given by the courts not only make justice expensive, but allowsa lot of criminals go scot free. Somehow I am not convinced about letting off criminals go scot free just because, you do not want one innocent be punished.