According to Osho, less government is desirable only when the need for it has diminished through the inner elevation of individuals—then there is no unrest. If government is reduced without raising personal responsibility and consciousness, unrest erupts, and soon rebounds into a stronger, even dictatorial, state. Life requires balance; otherwise weakened authority invites tyranny.
Shrinking government works only if people become wiser and more responsible; otherwise chaos invites a harsher ruler.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
If there is less government, could there be unrest in the country?
You did not understand what I said. I understood what you are saying. I am not saying there should be “government-less.” I am saying there should be less need for government. Then there will be no unrest. That is, the need for government should go on decreasing day by day. It can decrease only if we go on raising the individual day by day. Without that, it cannot decrease. Government becomes less as we go on elevating the individual. If, without lifting the individual, we reduce government, then unrest will indeed arise. And unrest cannot last for long; therefore the government will return—return more dictatorial. Life is always a balance. You cannot break that balance for long. If you weaken the government today, tomorrow you yourselves will be creating a dictator.
What is the way out?’ The astrologer said, ‘Do not listen to the scriptures; they are meant for someone else. You should sleep twenty-four hours; that is your virtue.’ Nadir Shah could not understand. Politicians are generally not gifted with intelligence; usually their intellect is rusted—otherwise, why would they be politicians? Nadir Shah said, ‘I don’t understand. What do you mean?’ The astrologer said, ‘If I explain more, I will land in trouble.’ Nadir Shah insisted, ‘I won’t trouble you. Tell me clearly.’ Then the astrologer said, ‘It is simple. The longer you are awake, the more evil happens. The more you are awake, the more turmoil there is. If you would sleep day and night, the world would be more peaceful. Your laziness is a great blessing. The scriptures are meant for someone else; they were not written for you.
Question: BELOVED OSHO, WHAT IS THE BEST GOVERNMENT? No government. The very idea of somebody governing somebody else is inhuman. Government is a game, the ugliest and the dirtiest game in the world. But there are people in the lowest state of consciousness who enjoy it: these are the politicians. The only joy of a politician is to govern, to be in power, to enslave people The greatest desire of all those who have reached to the peaks of consciousness has been the dream that one day we can get rid of all governments. That day will be the greatest in the whole history -- past, present, future -- of man, because getting rid of all governments will mean destroying the ugliest game, the game the politicians have been playing for centuries.
Government is protection. Government is necessary. Where there is more than one person, there must be some rules, some order; otherwise there will be great chaos and living will become difficult. So government is needed—but only up to a limit. Government is needed only up to the point where it stops one person from obstructing another’s freedom of life. That’s all. No person should intrude upon another’s life—up to that, government has a function. But this is a negative function: protect people’s freedom. Yet once power comes into the hands of government, far from protecting people’s freedom, arrangements begin to make people dependent. Far from making your life happy, those in whose hands the apparatus of power lies become filled with an unquenchable lust—more power, and more power! Those whom they were appointed to protect they begin to exploit. Government sits upon the chest; the people shrink.
Beloved Osho, I have heard you say that you would like to sever our relationships with all "isms." does this include rajneeshism as well?
It would be easier to call it something totally new, but then nobody would understand what it is. So until we have enough people to understand, we will have to carry a wrong label on it. Once they have understood, the label will be removed. Once we have our own world around this earth, "ism" is not going to be part of our way of life. So if you think Rajneeshism is also an "ism," throw it away. You have not understood anything. Your approach is still intellectual; otherwise, such a question would not have arisen. You can see -- no dogma is preached, no belief system is given. You are not required to accept anything. The atheist can become part of my communes, the theist can become part, the communist can become part, the capitalist can become part. We don't discriminate against anybody. Our basic approach is such, that…