According to Osho, democracy has no guiding role inside communes; it is a mediocre rule-by-numbers fit for nations, not for conscious communities. Communes should be meritocracies led by the most intelligent, creative, and awake individuals, with responsibility graded by competence. Such leadership nurtures creativity, prevents mediocrity from ruling, and aligns communal decisions with higher awareness rather than majority opinion.
In a commune, don’t vote on everything—let the wisest and most skilled guide the rest.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Beloved master, in what way do you envisage democracy playing a part in your communes?
The question is a little complex. Democracy is not the highest goal. It is better than dictatorial regimes, it is better than monarchies, but it is not the end of the journey -- because democracy basically means government by the people, of the people, for the people, but the people are retarded. So let us say: government by the retarded, for the retarded, of the retarded. Democracy cannot be the highest possibility man can attain. It is good in comparison to other forms of government that have preceded it, but not something that can succeed it. I call that meritocracy. I want a government by the people of merit. And merit is a very rare quality. As the situation is, all the geniuses of the world are outside governments. It is hilarious: those geniuses are needed in the government because they can give the best world to humanity, but they…
The next day I answered in the public lecture, that why she is not feeling excitement anymore, because she has no more any power. She may be the president, but she cannot dominate and exploit the commune. And why she is feeling happy in Europe, because we have many communes in Europe where she is still my representative because I am not going there. But if she wants to know the exact reason, I can come to Europe, or to Singapore, or to Japan, or to Australia, anywhere she wants and immediately she will see there her excitement disappearing.
A:* No. I'm not anarchist. This democracy is bogus, it is simply a rotary club of dictators -- four years, five years, one dictator; then five years another dictator. This democracy depends on two political parties at least, and those two political parties are basically the same. The psychology is that one party rules. Naturally it cannot fulfill the promises it has given to humanity, to its nation, to the people; nobody can fulfill them, because to fulfill them will need such a radical change into everything, that these politicians cannot do that. But in five years' time, people become fed up with them and the other party starts getting support. The other party says, "We are going to fulfill all these promises." And the memory of people is not very long, psychologically it is not more than three years.
Osho, our commune is not like any of the traditional ashrams or monasteries. Would you talk to us more about the function of your commune?
IT is necessary first to understand the traditional structure of an ashrama, and also of a monastery. It will give you the background to understand the meaning of my commune. The ashrama is an Eastern concept based on renouncing society, its comforts, conveniences. An ashrama is a group of people living together in austerity, self-imposed poverty, starvation in the name of fasting; torturing the body in order to have control over the physical by the spiritual; doing all kinds of exercises so that they become able to concentrate on the idea of God if they are Hindus, or on the idea of the ultimate growth of human consciousness if they are Buddhists and Jainas. But the goal is far away for all the three -- you can call it God, you can call it the Buddha, you can call it the Jina. They are different words signifying nothing, but pointing…
Question: BELOVED OSHO, WHAT IS YOUR IDEA OF A MODEL COMMUNE? Each individual should be respected as he is, not according to any ideal. His basic needs should be fulfilled by the commune, and as the commune becomes richer, every individual should be provided with more comfort, with more luxury -- because I am not against luxury or comfort. I am not a sadist, and I don't want people to be tortured in any beautiful name. In the name of religion, or in the name of socialism, nobody should be sacrificed. No kind of self torture should be supported. Man is here to rejoice, to live a life as beautifully, as peacefully, as comfortably as possible. I am all for richness, but the richness will be of the commune. As the commune becomes richer, every individual will become richer. I am against poverty; I am not a worshiper of poverty.