Lycurgus and Sparta - Ideal Government?

[Buddy]

Lycurgus and Sparta - Ideal Government?

I experienced mixed emotions from the topic post--from feeling appalled to feeling elated.

I'm unable to gel a single position on this, so I suppose I'll just say what's on my mind. If we started from a non-apocalyptic situation, I'd say yes! Go for it. Why not re-start with just a Senate and a more or less level playing field to give people a chance to work themselves out of a slave-to-the-system mentality and maximize their particular gifts for the common good of all?

The other thing that seems very important to me is that the structure of any governing body be flexible and willing to put itself mostly out of business, so to speak, should the moral and spiritual development of the people require or desire it. IOW, the gov't should be a general idea subject to "evolution" as is any other thing or individual.

That brings to mind something I read in my studies of Native American cultures--Navajo in particular. On page 83 of Language and Art in the Navajo Universe, the author describes Navajo beliefs, which point to an absence of coercion and forceful manipulations.

Navajos believe that each person should have the right to speak and act as he pleases, so long as his intentions are not malevolent or his actions harmful to others. Desirable and ethical behavior on the part of others is hoped for and even expected, but it is never demanded or required. Coercion and control are always deplored in intra-group relations.
[...]
Their primary social premise might be said to be that no person has the right to speak for or direct the actions of another.

In intra-group relations no individual, regardless of position or status, has the right to impose his will on the group. Likewise, the group does not have the right to impose its will on the individual. Unanimity is the only acceptable basis of collective action.

Note, however, that this speaks of everyday life. As well, the absence of collective action is not the same as a lack of individual action by any portion of the group.

This is all related to the Navajo view of the world. Language is not a mirror of reality; reality is a mirror of language. This means that the "Word" came first and one is witnessing its expression in others. One does not super-impose one's own "Word" on the "Word" of another or of the Great Spirit and without carefully considering consequences to the Great Spirit and one's own place within it.

These are just a few of my current thoughts. Apologies if I'm off-topic. I do note that the Peloponnesian Wars ended in Sparta's victory over Athens and Greek political power subsequently waned, so I think I was already pre-disposed to liking a majority of the ideas presented. :)

 

[Eva]

Hi Buddy,

The Navajo quote you posted drew my attention.

Navajos believe that each person should have the right to speak and act as he pleases, so long as his intentions are not malevolent or his actions harmful to others. Desirable and ethical behavior on the part of others is hoped for and even expected, but it is never demanded or required. Coercion and control are always deplored in intra-group relations.
[...]
Unanimity is the only acceptable basis of collective action.

How could one possibly tell, with certainty, what the other person's intentions are ? There are guidelines, sure, and you can try to discern their intentions but can anyone really vouch that they know precisely what goes on in someone else's head? Moreover, is it only the intention that counts and not the result of a word or action itself ? We are prisoners to the predator's mind because we were injured, and we act according to its dictates hurting others, without the intention to hurt them of course, but the results of our (the predator's) words and actions are there and they are not pretty.

Next, what is a harmful action other than the obvious physical violence ? Does emotional torture count ? And if it does, how is it defined precisely? So these two statements that follow the "so long as" are as good as non-existent imho.

Then for the rest of the phrase. I hope and expect one thing but I do not require or demand it. Sure, in the sense of hoping and expecting that when I smile and greet my neighbour , he will smile and greet me back. I do not demand or require that, in fact he may decide to curse me instead and that's fine too. But what happens about that exact same attitude when a child walks out the front door? I do not just hope and expect that the neighbour will greet them back but I also require and demand that they DON'T curse her. Because for one I don't want the child to take this sort of example and also I don't want the child to be subject to a freight or confusion just because the neighbour thinks it's alright to do that.

As for unanimity, that requires that everyone speaks the same "language" and is at the same level of being which is the ideal, or that there is enough automatism and "sheepification" that one either wouldn't bother exploring his own thoughts or if he did he wouldn't bother voicing them.
Another aspect, which I saw in practise recently, is that in a citizens' assembly if one or a few people disagree it is not enough to just voice their disagreement, they need to exert a veto - and I can't help wondering, what sort of people abhor conflict and would be the first to back down?


So, I consider reading this paragraph thus

Navajos believe that each person should have the right to speak and act as he pleases, so long as his intentions are not malevolent or his actions harmful to others. Desirable and ethical behavior on the part of others is hoped for and even expected, but it is never demanded or required. Coercion and control are always deplored in intra-group relations.

And still, I think this is a wonderful way of conduct in small scale communities. It's also how Greek villages were, and some are still, existing. When the population is small it's actually the individuals that put a law in action by their attitude. For instance, if a villager behaves unethically permanently, his neighbours stop associating with him. They discuss him with their friends at the (single!) local coffee shop and the word spreads. The deviant villager is not subject to any sort of punishment other than being ostracised, his free choice to conduct himself unethically is preserved yet his environment is being depleted of potential victims to that behaviour.
In my example above, that neighbour would simply cease being my neighbour. I'd have moved out and no-one would have moved next to him. He'd be free to curse all he wanted every morning , only there'd be no one there to hear him or follow his example.

What happens though when there is no single coffee shop and there is absolutely noway to know each and every individual of a community ? Add to that the completely distorted concept of Thou Shall Not Gossip and you are doubly left in the dark.
So maybe a new theory needs to be devised. One that may sound less open - compared to our preconceived notions of today, whichever way they have been instilled in us - but in reality preserves everyone's freedom at a deeper level.

To conclude, I guess it's obvious that I am still struggling with these concepts myself and I'm just sharing thoughts here, nothing more. :)

(Edit - spelling mistake)

 

[Buddy]

And still, I think this is a wonderful way of conduct in small scale communities. It's also how Greek villages were, and some are still, existing. When the population is small it's actually the individuals that put a law in action by their attitude. For instance, if a villager behaves unethically permanently, his neighbours stop associating with him. They discuss him with their friends at the (single!) local coffee shop and the word spreads. The deviant villager is not subject to any sort of punishment other than being ostracised, his free choice to conduct himself unethically is preserved yet his environment is being depleted of potential victims to that behaviour.

Indeed. In such a mindset where "ostracism as powerful deterrent" exists as a precondition with regard to behavior, there also seems to follow a pre-existing respect for individuals and individuality as valued and needed parts of the tribal whole. Or perhaps it's vice versa? At any rate, every member is important.

Please note that I did specify that the example refers to everyday life. Also implied with "Unanimity" is a notion that a subset of the whole group can act as needed to interfere with a serious trouble-maker if concerned individuals in the group think that a risk of ostracism is outweighed by a need for stability and a protection for the weaker ones. In such a case, action can be taken and the function of tribal elders or law-holders can be invoked.

At least this is how it makes sense to me ATM. :)

 

[Corvus]

Just watched the movie "300" about the battle at Thermopylene yesterday and was reminded of the strictness of the Spartan society. Sparta seems to have been organized in a way that made them strong. But they were only able to keep this focus on discipline and war through having the Helots as their slaves, and it seems to have been an elitist society of 10 000 people that felt themselves to be superior to all other societies.

Movie 300 is a Zionist propaganda that got only new owners in this modern times. Persians are shown as monsters like it is some kind lord of the rings movie. It is propaganda launched at the time when it is most needed with Iran in the center of political spectrum. Spartans are shown as bodybuilders when in reality it was different. That is all filtered through today's exaggerated materialistic masculine lenses where bigger, stronger and taller is what matters. But when you look at history the "biggest" leaders in sts sense were not very tall. For example Alexander(Scythians almost made fun of him when they saw him because they thought he was taller and stronger), and in modern time we can take Napoleon as example but that is all another story. It is more about intelligence then sheer power.

This western propaganda of Persia was very active in a time Greeks fought wars in Greece. This was a way to stop their fighting and unite them against Persians under Alexander. It was also propagated in the time of Rome when Rome was having trouble with Parthia and Sassanids. Reason for they success was their better equipment and training as infantry units. Persians did not have good infantry and were mainly dependent on their archers and cavalry that was best in that time and best cavalry units were Schytians. But against better armor archers had no effect as cavalry did not have against wall of spears. But the very important thing to is strategy that depends on commanders. If thee is a good commander and strategist would not have difficult time defeating more powerful army like was spartan which was the historical case by the way. At the battle of Leuctra Spartan army was crushed by the Theban army and the Spartan hegemony which began with t defeat of Athens ended. Persia had role in helping Sparta defeat Athens by sending money so so much about their despise of Persian gold as shown in the movie is another thing.

Interesting though is that the most responsible unit for Spartan defeat(new tactic by Theban commander was most responsible for victory) was elite Theban sacred band that had 300 professional soldiers that were homosexuals. That is 150 pairs. So in the way it was love that defeated ego and will for dominance in a sense because every soldier in a unit was prepared to die defending their loved one. When you think of it, it was very cunning way to get them fight beyond their limits. But most of Spartan army was their allies that were in fact slaves and had to fight for them but when the elite core of Spartans was crushed they fled and gain their freedom again.

I bet many people did not even know that and would made them pause knowing that great Spartans were defeated by homosexuals, I think it would be in a way devastating for their egos and prejudices. But like always with humans all the things done for noble reasons fell in the water with he wave of corruption because after Spartan hegemony(before that was Athenian) came short period of Theban hegemony that was ended with Alexander that destroyed by that time dreaded sacred band. But they fought to the death and one Macedon commander saw he gained respect for them afterwards. Theba was then burned by Alexander and populace sold as slaves. Greek independence soon after that ended by the Macedon fist. Today there is a statue in Greece in their honor like there is a statue in honor of Leonidas.

I just want to say when in the movie Leonidas says that Athenians are child lovers it seems hypocritical because the city state with highest pedophilia was Sparta where it was practically legalized. The "penetratee" was usually of lower caste. In the case of Sparta--as per what I've read, specifically and most recently: Persian Fire--pederasty was institutionalized for boys and acceptable for girls as long as there was no vaginal penetration. Influenced political figures like today would choose kids but when they were older they would help them to gain higher position in society. In the case of Sparta the actual act of penetrating boys in the Agoge is debated, but there was institutionalized pederasty. This was seen as a way of making them submissive to the authority of the institution and the adult warrior they were partnered with. For the most part, it worked. This kind of abuse, even in modern day, has been shown to twist the minds of the abused to the point where they generally "attach" themselves to their abuser. Of course there is always the question of validity of sources.

And when it comes to question of women they were in subdued position in Greece. Sparta was maybe somewhat different in that way but Greece was far back in relation to women position then Persia where women had very great influence in courts. And by the way in the battle of Thermophile most of units were of other Greek cities not Sparta. When they were flanked then the majority of army left but with 3000 Spartans there were also 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans left to fight to the death. I think to much credit is given to Sparta when in reality they could not achieve what other "weaker" armies could, like Macedonians that defeated Persia while spartan campaign to took Asia Minor was not successful. I think that the very important thing besides martial prowess for a souled individual is for what does he fight. If he is fighting for his freedom, family and community then his moral will be much higher but when he fights for domination he would not fight so fiercely. That is only possible for psychopaths and those pathological s without any ideals but greed and power.

 

[Corvus]

When they were flanked then the majority of army left but with 3000 Spartans there were also 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans left to fight to the death.

I meant 300 Spartans.

 

[Laura]

Interesting though is that the most responsible unit for Spartan defeat(new tactic by Theban commander was most responsible for victory) was elite Theban sacred band that had 300 professional soldiers that were homosexuals. That is 150 pairs. So in the way it was love that defeated ego and will for dominance in a sense because every soldier in a unit was prepared to die defending their loved one. When you think of it, it was very cunning way to get them fight beyond their limits. But most of Spartan army was their allies that were in fact slaves and had to fight for them but when the elite core of Spartans was crushed they fled and gain their freedom again.

I bet many people did not even know that and would made them pause knowing that great Spartans were defeated by homosexuals, I think it would be in a way devastating for their egos and prejudices. But like always with humans all the things done for noble reasons fell in the water with he wave of corruption because after Spartan hegemony(before that was Athenian) came short period of Theban hegemony that was ended with Alexander that destroyed by that time dreaded sacred band. But they fought to the death and one Macedon commander saw he gained respect for them afterwards. Theba was then burned by Alexander and populace sold as slaves. Greek independence soon after that ended by the Macedon fist. Today there is a statue in Greece in their honor like there is a statue in honor of Leonidas.

I just want to say when in the movie Leonidas says that Athenians are child lovers it seems hypocritical because the city state with highest pedophilia was Sparta where it was practically legalized. The "penetratee" was usually of lower caste. In the case of Sparta--as per what I've read, specifically and most recently: Persian Fire--pederasty was institutionalized for boys and acceptable for girls as long as there was no vaginal penetration. Influenced political figures like today would choose kids but when they were older they would help them to gain higher position in society. In the case of Sparta the actual act of penetrating boys in the Agoge is debated, but there was institutionalized pederasty. This was seen as a way of making them submissive to the authority of the institution and the adult warrior they were partnered with. For the most part, it worked. This kind of abuse, even in modern day, has been shown to twist the minds of the abused to the point where they generally "attach" themselves to their abuser. Of course there is always the question of validity of sources.

And when it comes to question of women they were in subdued position in Greece. Sparta was maybe somewhat different in that way but Greece was far back in relation to women position then Persia where women had very great influence in courts. And by the way in the battle of Thermophile most of units were of other Greek cities not Sparta. When they were flanked then the majority of army left but with 3000 Spartans there were also 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans left to fight to the death. I think to much credit is given to Sparta when in reality they could not achieve what other "weaker" armies could, like Macedonians that defeated Persia while spartan campaign to took Asia Minor was not successful. I think that the very important thing besides martial prowess for a souled individual is for what does he fight. If he is fighting for his freedom, family and community then his moral will be much higher but when he fights for domination he would not fight so fiercely. That is only possible for psychopaths and those pathological s without any ideals but greed and power.

I don't think you read this thread from the beginning, Corvinus. The idea that the Spartans were homosexuals and/or pederasts has been disposed of as propaganda.

 

[Corvus]

I don't think you read this thread from the beginning, Corvinus. The idea that the Spartans were homosexuals and/or pederasts has been disposed of as propaganda.

Yes, my bad. I did not put enough attention to that blue section because of hurrying. It sounds logical but the part with the women s best status in the ancient world I would take with the grain of salt if we take into account Persians, Celts and Scythians.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I finished reading the other Lives in On Sparta. These two bits stood out for me:

Now natural philosophers believe that if the forces of conflict and discord were to be eliminated from the universe, the heavenly bodies would stand still, and in the resulting complete harmony the process of motion and generation would be brought to a dead stop. [Footnote: Such views were articulated especially by Heraclitus around the beginning of the fifth century, and (somewhat later) by Empedocles.] In the same way Sparta's lawgiver seems to have introduced the spirit of ambition and contention into the constitution as an incitement to virtue.

This sounds like it could be a corruption of an original idea along the lines of that in Horns of Moses: If the forces of conflict and discord on Earth were to be eliminated, comets wouldn't go boom-boom on Earth.

And this, from the Life of Agis:

Every nine years the ephors pick a clear, moonless night, and sit in silence gazing up at the sky. Should, then, a star shoot from one sector to another sector, they conclude that the kings have committed some fault relating to religion, and they suspend them from their office until an oracle comes from Delphi or Olympia to support the kings who have been convicted by the omen.

This, too, reads like a relic of some sort of cometary divination tied to the conduct of leaders...

 

[Buddy]

I finished reading the other Lives in On Sparta. These two bits stood out for me:

Now natural philosophers believe that if the forces of conflict and discord were to be eliminated from the universe, the heavenly bodies would stand still, and in the resulting complete harmony the process of motion and generation would be brought to a dead stop. [Footnote: Such views were articulated especially by Heraclitus around the beginning of the fifth century, and (somewhat later) by Empedocles.] In the same way Sparta's lawgiver seems to have introduced the spirit of ambition and contention into the constitution as an incitement to virtue.

This sounds like it could be a corruption of an original idea along the lines of that in Horns of Moses: If the forces of conflict and discord on Earth were to be eliminated, comets wouldn't go boom-boom on Earth.

Or could that just be a different understanding of what the natural philosophers were really wanting to convey in the context of their understanding in their time? I may not have noticed the possibility if I hadn't aready been familiar with Heraclitus, whose writings show what I perceive as gnostic influences.

In The Dream of Reason, Anthony Gottlieb credits him with stuff like "Panta rhei" (All things change); "understanding the logos enables judgment" and "Humans must live together in harmony with nature, however there is no harmony without discord."

Heraclitus is one of the 'natural philosophers' to which the author in the above quote refers, and reading him in context, it seems more likely he is revealing a quantum-like evolutionary principle of 'change toward better'. And any assessment of better requires discord to exist in order to improve.

Here is a fuller context of that quote, with source, including a bolded statement functioning as a qualifier:

Natural philosophers are of the opinion that, if strife and discord should be banished from the universe, the heavenly bodies would stand still, and all generation and motion would cease in consequence of the general harmony. And so the Spartan lawgiver seems to have introduced the spirit of ambition and contention into his civil polity as an incentive to virtue, desiring that good citizens should always be somewhat at variance and in conflict with one another, and deeming that complaisance which weakly yields without debate, which knows no effort and no struggle, to be wrongly called concord. 4 And some think that Homer also was clearly of this mind; for he would not have represented Agamemnon as pleased when Odysseus and Achilles were carried away into abuse of one another with "frightful words,"7 if he had not thought the general interests likely to profit by the mutual rivalry and quarrelling of the chieftains. This principle, however, must not be accepted without some reservations; for excessive rivalries are injurious to states, and productive of great perils.
_http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Agesilaus*.html

Other sources of the quote use "strife and opposition" instead of "strife and discord" and my impression is that the cosmos context established by 'heavenly bodies' indicates the meanings should be taken in the fullest sense.

Here's a few more sources:

_http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/agesilaus.htm
_http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/agesilus.html
_http://archive.org/details/liveswithenglish00plutuoft

These are just my thoughts. It doesn't change belief in the principle indicated in Horns of Moses; rather, to me, that principle points more to how excess of it is what's going to do us in, OSIT.

 

[Laura]

Buddy, did you read "Horns of Moses" yet?

 

[Buddy]

Buddy, did you read "Horns of Moses" yet?

Not yet, but I'd be very surprised if we were that far apart on Heraclitus as a representative natural philosopher expounding on a cosmological principle. Did I just misunderstand what AI is saying?

 

[Buddy]

OK, I just bought a kindle version for now and am going to start reading later today. After reading that description of the book, it kind of makes any philosophical sacred cow I might have look rather sickly by comparison. :)

 

[Mr.Cyan]

Note : This was in my drafts folder for quite some time - and i guess i finally managed to put down some thoughts to post today. I was also contemplating including this in the Travelogue section, however after giving it some thought, i think this has some relevant to this thread. Apologies in advance if this is slightly off-topic here.


I had the privilege of visiting the Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan this year, and i must say it was such a pleasant, and soul enriching experience.

Concerning Bhutanese society, and the way their country is governed, i just briefly wanted to compare some aspects of governance where i see some similarities with the Laws of Lycurgus in Sparta in the respect of women and land reform. in other aspects, they seem to have set-up a very resilient model of society that is well equipped to handle the coming changes for humanity (my opinion:)) - hence it could be a form of ideal government in the face of coming cataclysms.

Please note that most of the information below, was based on my experience travelling in Bhutan for 2 weeks, and in conversations with Bhutanese themselves. More research definitely needs to be done in Bhutanese history & culture to better understand these aspects.

Women

Women in Bhutan are treated with great respect and held in high esteem and equal to men. Bhutanese men upon marriage move in with their wives and not the other way round as in most countries. Property can be inherited through women, and they generally have an equal say in most family matters. Polygamy is practised, but i understand it is not in the view that women are "property" but more a necessity in the past due to their small village populations in the mountainous valleys, where they had to optimise the chances of increasing the population. Polygamy is now not very common.

This was not a matriarchal society, but more a society where respect and importance are placed on the role of women, and also as a representation of the sacred female; Bhutan is a deeply Buddhist nation (Vajrayana Bhuddism).

Further most marriages in Bhutan are "love marriages", which again is different front the neighbouring South Asian countries were arranged marriages are still heavily practised.

Bhutanese women are very elegant, beautiful - while at the same time quiet and demure. Once can notice the great 'steel" they have in their character and strength that they bring to their families. Similar to depictions of Spartan women.

Maybe i am exaggerating, but it almost felt to me that Bhutanese women were holding the nation together - and for me it was such a breath of fresh air, that i finally visited a country that truly deeply respected & honoured women.

Land Reform

While Bhutan did not divide up equally their country into parcels of land like Sparta - they have had quite an equitable land distribution under a series of land reforms that began in 1950s which was accompanied by the abolition of slavery and serfdom. Under these reforms, villagers (citizens) of Bhutan were given rights/titles to their land that they have live and worked on. Hence the idea was that every Bhutanese will have a piece of land to call home.

However, today as the Bhutanese economy is opening up slowly to capitalism, speculation and real estate is causing some problems for urban Bhutanese. In the capital Thimpu for example - land reforms had previously granted a number families righst to the land - these were in-turn developed into housing estates (via bank loans/investments) and rented out to new families wanting to move into Thimpu. Hence the greed and psychopathy factor has entered the Bhutanese equation due to capitalism; however Bhutan remains largely an agricultural society, hence land reforms accordingly rights to ownership to every citizen is indeed a noble enterprise. I guess this is also possible as the population of Bhutan is not large, at roughly 700,000 people.


Military

While not warrior society or nation like Sparta - tiny Bhutan is no pushover in military matters. Having been unified under Ngawang Ngamyal in the early 17th century - Bhutan succesfully repelled attacks by Mongolian and Tibetan invaders at the height of their powers despite being greatly outnumbered.

Viewing Bhutanese history (without going into much details) - they have been successsful in most of their military ventures, and were always being lead from the front by the leaders & Kings

In addition, depsite having faught wars and losing territory to the British - Bhutan was never colonized.

The last time their army was mobilised - in 2003 the weed out the anti-Indian government Assam rebels that had been in hiding in Bhutan's lowland jungles, their King personally led their army to flush out their rebels after intense fighting.

Definitely not a Thermopylae, but certainly commendable :)

Economy
Bhutan is largely an agricultural economy. It didn't have a national currency until the 1960s, and prior to this its economy was largely based on barter, and hence people of Bhutan largely remained unscathed from all the global economic upheavals over the last century. The Bhutanese currency is called the Ngultrum and it is pegged to the Indian rupee. Bhutan maintains very close economic and military ties to India, and its foreign policy is also aligned to India's. The government revenue largely comes from the sale of hydropower to India, and to my understanding this income is enough to sustain government expenditure, and provide the population with universal healthcare and education. Bhutan has more than enough electricity from hydropower, and the excess hydropower capacity is largely funded, built and developed by India - and in return India purchases the electricity from Bhutan and provides a crucial source of government revenue.Hence you say, that economically Bhutan has "secured" its future against the depravity of global economic cycles through these measures.

Further although capitalism is slowly increasing in importance in Bhutan, the government places strong emphases on Buddhist spiritual values, sustainability and wholistic development - hence their official policy of Gross National Happiness. From Wikipedia this policy is described as:

The four pillars of GNH philosophy are the promotion of

sustainable development
preservation and promotion of cultural values
conservation of the natural environment, and
establishment of good governance.[citation needed]
The GNH concept evolved through the contribution of international of scholars and researchers to become a socioeconomic development framework. The GNH policy now serves as a unifying vision for Bhutan's five-year planning process and all the derived planning documents that guide the economic and development plans of the country

I guess this implies that the Bhutanese government itself realises the need for economic development in harmony with nature and cultural values - again quite a different approach when compared to other nations in the world.

Governance

Bhutan is now a constitutional monarchy, after a series democratic reforms since the 1960s, culminating in first elections in 2008. From Wikipedia:

Constitution
Main article: Constitution of Bhutan
On March 26, 2005, "an auspicious day when the stars and elements converge favourably to create an environment of harmony and success", the king and government distributed a draft of the country's first constitution, requesting that every citizen review it. A new house of parliament, the National Council, is chartered consisting of 20 elected representatives from each of the dzonghags, persons selected by the King. The National Council would be paired with the other already existing house, the National Assembly.

Per the Constitution, the monarchy is given a leadership role in setting the direction for the government as long as the King shall demonstrate his commitment and ability to safeguard the interests of the kingdom and its people.

Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck
On December 15, 2006, the fourth Druk Gyalpo, His Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuck, abdicated all of his powers as King to his son, Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, with a specific intention to prepare the young King for the country's transformation to a full-fledged, democratic form of government due to occur in 2008.

The previous King's abdication in favour of his son was originally set to occur in 2008 as well, but there was an apparent concern that the new King should have hands-on experience as the nation's leader before presiding over a transformation in the country's form of government. According to the national newspaper, the Kuensel, the previous King stated to his cabinet that "as long as he himself continued to be King, the Crown Prince would not gain the actual experience of dealing with issues and carrying out the responsibilities of a head of state. With parliamentary democracy to be established in 2008, there was much to be done; so it was necessary that he gained this valuable experience."

The fourth Druk Gyalpo further stated that

"Bhutan could not hope for a better time for such an important transition. Today, the country enjoys peace and stability, and its security and sovereignty is ensured. After phenomenal development and progress, the country is closer than ever to the goal of economic self reliance. Bhutan’s relation with its closest neighbour and friend, India, has reached new heights. International organisations and bilateral development partners are ready to support Bhutan’s development efforts and political transformation."

Tsechu

Most of Bhutanese community life in their various districts or dzongkhag's revolve around the Tsechu festival - a 2-3 day long festival performed once annually in the dzong's at different times during the year in the different districts. At its heart, after witnessing a tsechu festival - it is a series of elaborate "musicals" recreating the popular Buddhist stories in their culture in a series of very detailed dances that are slow and deliberate. The dancers are monks or citizens in the district who have been practising all year for it, and it really reminds me of the Sufi's whirling dervishes at times. According to the locals, these dances performed yearly, are a sort of ritual cleansing and appeasement to ensure harmony in the community for the following year - besides being an annual "fun and games" event for the communities as well.

Issues

In research on Bhutan, the key controversial issue over the last 30 years, has been the issue of Nepali refugees in Bhutan - this is elaborated here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutanese_refugees

Summary

In summary, once you visit Bhutan, the immediate impression one gets, is that this is a country that is deeply spiritual, cultural, and in harmony with nature - and its leadership. The King is deeply respected and admired because of always showing care and concern for citizens, and instituting the necessary democratic reforms, and policies that are needed to care for society and enable them to lead better lives. It seems that the Raven crown has the "mandate of heaven" in this corner of the Himalayas. There seems to be no serious grievances amongst the population - and they remain largely optimistic about their future - maybe a case study in ideal governance ? I don't know, but it certainly left of deep impression on me.