I do not romanticise or demonize them (as you in your statement by calling them
absolute monarchies as the system is more complex and nuanced). My point is simple here history teaches some lessons and we should learn from it.
If you see today monarchs are replaced either by oligarchy, power or money. It’s impossible to fight an election for US President without money, which brings vested interests (not so much different in essence from Indian, Persian or Chinese federal systems managing large swaths of empire).
Only a system which protects minority from the tyranny of majority is true test of humanity and in this I believe early Persian empire, Ashok and among Mughals Akbar did better by promoting truly plural society, abolishing the system of punishing people in minority with different beliefs. Obviously we didn’t live in that era so my views are only based on some studies.
Today in most democracy it’s a tyranny of majority and the constitutional rights granted for protection of minority are constantly diluted or completely removed. “Black lives matter” and “Minority treatment in India” is a very good example of it (including in China, but than people don’t consider it as democracy anyways).
> Ashok and among Mughals Akbar did better by promoting truly plural society, abolishing the system of punishing people in minority with different beliefs
> Obviously we didn’t live in that era so my views are only based on some studies.
It was the massacres Ashoka committed in the war against Kalinga that supposedly turned him Buddhist. Every other empire in human history has also committed huge atrocities, so much that it's almost tautological.
> Today in most democracy it’s a tyranny of majority and the constitutional rights granted for protection of minority are constantly diluted or completely removed. “Black lives matter” and “Minority treatment in India”
I agree it's regressing right now, but the political structures still exist in democracies to fight back against the regression, at least for now. That's more than can be said for people living under absolute monarchy or authoritarian rule today.
> It was the massacres Ashoka committed in the war against Kalinga that supposedly turned him Buddhist. Every other empire in human history has also committed huge atrocities, so much that it's almost tautological.
Do you think modern times are any different?
Can you count the civilians death in Palestine, Iraq, Afganistan and many other places where USA and its allies bombed and bombs regularly. Talk of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it’s more brutal and worse than Kalinga which transformed Ashoka. Did this transform USA (its allies) or it’s political establishments?
Here not even talking about WWI and WWII. So don’t think living in a bubble unaffected by these can legitimise the tyranny of majority or democracy or communism which propelled to kill millions of others with different beliefs.
> but political structure still exists
Yes they are based on majoritarian views and politics at the expense of muzzling the minority.
We need a modern revolution based on science and humanity, removing the artificial barriers created by us, but anyways I know I am dreaming.
> The communists were motivated by science and humanity.
No not really, communists are also another form of majoritarian political system.
So far there isn’t an example of any system which really builds on science and humanity. All the structures at present are based on majoritarian views without due protection to minorities or minority views. I have yet to see a system which protects minorities from the tyranny of majority.
Communist or Democracy both can survive only when administration appease majority and follow majoritarian views. Seen it first hand by living in both the systems.
If you see today monarchs are replaced either by oligarchy, power or money. It’s impossible to fight an election for US President without money, which brings vested interests (not so much different in essence from Indian, Persian or Chinese federal systems managing large swaths of empire).
Only a system which protects minority from the tyranny of majority is true test of humanity and in this I believe early Persian empire, Ashok and among Mughals Akbar did better by promoting truly plural society, abolishing the system of punishing people in minority with different beliefs. Obviously we didn’t live in that era so my views are only based on some studies.
Today in most democracy it’s a tyranny of majority and the constitutional rights granted for protection of minority are constantly diluted or completely removed. “Black lives matter” and “Minority treatment in India” is a very good example of it (including in China, but than people don’t consider it as democracy anyways).