MikeLigalig.com

Ever notice how great or political influential leaders have a tendency to deify themselves before the people? Or are themselves deified by the people whom they rule over?

What I mean by this is that great leaders in the past easily correlate political control with religious power and influence. Is it because its easier to control a people when one not only is ruling over them, but is also subject to their worship?

A case in point would be the Pharaohs of Egypt, particular before the Ptolemic Epoch. During the reigns of Pharaoh, every single Egyptian was instructed to offer prayers to the divine person of Pharaoh, who was, in Egyptian Religion, the physical and living form of the God Amon Ra. That upon death of a Pharaoh, the spirit of Amon Ra would transcend and take the form of the man to be coronated to the throne.

Another case in point is the man who is Gaius Julius Caesar. A brilliant tactician, a political animal, but yet killed by his own senators and close friends. Yet upon his death, the Roman people were so affected by the situation that they--by the Will of the People--proclaimed the divinity of Caesar. Thereby promulgating Caesar to the Pantheon of Roman Gods. Becoming a God by the will of the people. As you can see, a man was made into a god? But how can this so when in life, Caesar himself never made any mention to be worshiped as a God.

Only after the precedent of the deification of Caesar did the practice of Roman Emperors declaring their own divinity come into place. Rome's greatest Emperor--Augustus, himself made it a mandate to offer Divine praises to the spirit of the Emperor and the Office of the Emperor--and to the Person of the Emperor.

Even European Monarchs in the epoch of Absolute Autocracy used this concept to legitimize their own rule. The right to rule by "Right of God". Many monarchies of Europe used this, namely the Hapsburg Dynasty, the Prussian Empire, the Basque Dynasty, the Tudors and the Romanov Dynasty of Russia.


What say you?


Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17215.0

remembering Ferdinand Edralin Marcos;

I aimed high to become a president , and this turns to a manical desire to hold on to this power!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17215.0

Even in the 20th century an example of such unchallenged devotion to a leader and regard to the leader as almost a divine or pseudo divine would be seen in Nazi Germany. During the rise of the Nazi Party in 1933; Nazi propaganda illustrated Hitler as the salvation of Germany. In one historical editorial that I am a member of, I read an article that made reference to the development of the Cult to Hitler during the 1930's; where members even regarded Hitler as the Messiah. Replacing the figure of Christ with Hitler; that in this cult, it was propagated that Hitler was the mediator between God and Germany. In my logical mind, I was amazed in reading this--or even trying to comprehend the 'reality' that being told in such an epoch.

And when you read enough about European History and reference to Imperial History, one notices that this 'Cult of the Persona' did not begin with Hitler. But actually started, in classical epoch, during the height of Pax Romana.

It was a Roman invention; this concept of the Cult of the Emperor. The worship and idolization of the Political Leader as some form of God within that particulate state. The classical edicts of Augustus proclaims this verbatum repeatedly. In view that the Emperor is not only the Lord of Life, but Lord of Death within an Empire and its Political-Military Control.

To be the center of not only the military, political, but even the religious circle--demonstrates the absolution of power. And control of such power.

This is effectively manifested in a quote that Louis XIV once declared to his Royal Ministers, "L'Etat, c'est moi; c'est loi parce que je il ainsi" (I am The State; It is law because I will it so)



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17215.0

One point of reflection is Queen Elizabeth II.  Although the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a constitutional monarchial type of government where the head of the state is the monarch but the head of government is the prime minister, the actual manager of the state is the prime minister.  The only function of the head of state is ceremonial and symbolic.

Despite of this, the crown of England still holds much power and influence even greater than the prime minister because she holds the sacred symbol of Englands sovereignty.

I am reminded of a latin fallacy Argumentum ad verecundiam.  People submit to the ideas and belief of another because of his authority.


Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17215.0

dali dinhi. apil kai naa pay kan-unon sa sud.



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17215.0

naa diay party, nahala mo sud ko, kay galibog nako

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17215.0

Thailand and Great Britain have similar set up of governing structure. The state is governed by the monarchy of Cholas while the government is run by the Prime Minister. The only thing that differs here is their religious beliefs and practices. A I right folks?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17215.0

Very true, Layman.

Thailand's form of government is based on the British form of Monarchical Democracy with a Parliamentary body. The monarchy in Britain retain the cultural as well as regal power forming as the symbol of state of the United Kingdom of the British Empire, whereas the Prime Minister holds the true power.

Thailand and Britain have similarities but there are visible differences; one is that the Thai have Les Majeste laws, which can prosecute and individual and assign jail terms if one desecrates the image of the King of Thailand or speaks ill of the Monarchy. There is no such thing as Les Majeste laws in Great Britain, on the contrary, there are British citizens who are anti-monarchy and who would even prefer an American Federalist system of government.

The reasons for the similarity in governmental forms between the two (for the most part) is that Thailand or as it was once known as Siam, owes its independence to British feasability and cooperation. Britain could have taken over Siam as it did to Burma in the Burmese-British Wars in the early 19th century, but allowed Siam to retain its independence in order to act as a buffer state between British Indian Colony and French Indochina.

As a result, there were close diplomatic relations between Krungthep (Bangkok) and London, which led to the evolution of Thai form of government from a feudal barbaric form that utilized slavery and forced indentured service to an enlightened form of government that utilized European Enlightenment ideals, as mandated by the reign of King Chulalongkorn (whose reign highlighted strong Siamese-European relations).

And to relate this to the subject matter, even today, the Thai people regard their present King, Bhumibol Adulyadej as a god within his people. Especially the kind of reverence they offer--in the form of prostration and even prayers.

One can even associate their form of reference to their monarch as being similar to the Imperial etiquette of Japan prior to Nihon's unconditional surrender to the United States---when the Japanese Emperor was considered Divine. The direct descendant of Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess.



Lorenzo,

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17215.0

^ Very John Locke-esque!



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17215.0