One, few and many

If you think, the real struggle of mankind has been to resolve this conflict between some and many. Monarchy was when power concentrated in one hand, but democracy has widened the circle by keeping more people in the loop. In business, the stretch is between monopoly and liberal business. In religion, a few messiahs and prophets have preached gospels, which inspired millions. And if you look at science and technology, ideology, creative literature, art and painting, entertainment and sports, it's the work of some people, which have influenced many.

Let us say it's the division-of-labour equivalent of human destiny. Some will have the talents and skills to produce what is good for many. A few hundred workers can produce clothes for millions. One television show can be enjoyed by hundreds of millions of people around the world! One man's idea (Osama bin Laden) can shake up the world. Another man's arrogance (George Bush) can perpetuate conflicts.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Remember the Pied Piper of Hamelin, who played his flute to lure all the rats out of the town afflicted by plague! When the Mayor of the town refused to pay the promised 1000 florins, the disgruntled pied piper played his flute again and all the children of the town followed him and disappeared into the cave of a mountain. Socrates died for a similar sin, condemned by the rulers for leading astray the young minds of Athens.

Every party has one leader, every orchestra has one conductor, every team has one captain, every plane has one pilot and every car has one driver. If you carefully examine, the control for most things in the world is in the hands of one or few. Companies have Management Committees or Board of Directors, nations have governments, discussions have panels, trades have unions, businesses have cartels, and others have societies or associations. It's amazing how the affairs of men are geared so that the most will surrender to few or one.

But why does it happen? Why does the smaller number take over the larger one? The obvious answer is that some people are always more intelligent, energetic and fortunate than others. Some people have better vision, more organizing capacity, patience, tolerance and ambition. Some people are better managers, planners and executors. Then these are only common sense, the frontline portals of human reasoning. There must be something that goes even deeper.

The Holy Bible says, "For many are called, but few are chosen." And Shakespeare is defiant in The Merchant of Venice when he writes that he will not choose what many men desire, because he will not jump with common spirits and rank himself with the barbarous multitude. But Winston Churchill gave it a whole new twist when he gave a speech on the skills and courage of British airmen, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

The conflict, however, is only resolved when the many owe it to the few or vice versa. Democracy is best at adopting this as political will. The people choose their representatives and trust them with their rights and freedom. The plurality works because a few not many are accountable for the political process. There is more milk than cream, more whey than milk, more substance than essence, and more quantity than quality. One couple can give birth to many children, one cornstalk bears many corns, one pod holds many seeds, and many clumps of thread produce a length of cloth.

The depth of reason is right in there. There are but a few truths embedded in many manifestations, and many rays of light beam out of a single sun. Every circle has only one centre, one diamond shines with many glints and many words write a single hymn. Many believers follow one prophet and many prophets obey one God. Many instruments make a tune, many thoughts make a decision, many withdrawals make a return, many dreams forge a success, many colours weave a rainbow and many petals shape a flower.

Therefore, singularity runs through the multitude like a thread across quilt. It combines many hearts, convinces many minds, wins many souls and connects many goals. But then what does it matter? Does one exist for many or many exist for one? The message carried by the American Eagle is " E Pluribus Unum", which in English means " Out of Many, One". Does it then mean that many are the divergence of one and one is the convergence of many?

Every man holds the world in him, as the world holds every man in it. In the end a crowd is so much the density of individuals as the individuals are a dispersed crowd. Many are magnified one, and one is reduction of many. That is why, one rouses many and many respond to one. Leaders and followers, herdsmen and cattle, chiefs and tribes, bosses and subordinates, saints and devotees, human affairs is but an unfolding pattern of one and many.

Taking from crime syndicates to the Papacy, the structure of hierarchy is like a pyramid. One person sits at the top while the base widens as it scales down. The opposite doesn't exist, except in a quip that not enough Indians but too many chiefs. What one man achieves is lived by many. Often one man picks up what is discarded by many and the rest is history. The prophets and reformers, scientists and revolutionaries, visionaries and missionaries, propagandists and pamphleteers, all of them come under this category.

The law of large numbers has it that the number of successes increases as the number of experiments increases. One and few are the outcomes of many as history is nothing but a register of experiments that propel societies from phase to phase. Every generation has its number of successes and number of failures. If nothing else, this is one sure way to tell one or few from many.

Mohammad Badrul Ahsan is a banker.