Are We The Pawns In This Game Of Chess?

In the game of chess, the most important figure is the king. In the game, the pawns, rooks, bishops, knights and the queen work constantly to protect the king from being killed. According to the designer of the game, once the king is killed via 'checkmate' the game is over.

Credit

The game was built with the idea of monarchy on the designer’s head. I was born in the mid 80s and know nothing about monarchy because i didn't have first hand experience but history makes me understand that the king was very powerful during that period. It was always a war of superiority and dominance between two or more kings.

Kingdoms waged wars against one another to own the property of another community. Their captives were used and sold as slaves. The more communities a king was able to conquer the more he is respected and feared by other communities. This was the order of the day.

In the present society, it appears to be the same. It seems the masses will always be the scapegoat or perhaps 'experiment' in every community. 

It is true that the common masses are often about 80% (if not more) of the total population of every state. These are often the powerless but they determine the continuity of the state because without them, there is practically nobody to rule.

Sadly, these people are the pawns in this life. If there is a war or an epidemic that affects the whole nation, the leaders are often evacuated. 

I still don't know why the people protecting these leaders feel they should be protected together with their family while the masses are left to ‘die’.

One thing is true, these leaders are common men too before they made presidents or governors. But immediately they are elected into office by the masses, they assume the status of demigod. 

Credit

No state can survive having leaders alone because there would be no one to rule. Why is it that the common masses always the victims in every society?

When the president of a third world country is sick, he travels to a well equipped hospital outside his country. Even if the sickness is malaria, he would travel out of the country to treat himself. Imagine an individual who uses hospital in Nigeria (for instance) and suddenly can not trust the doctors after becoming the president. Or is it that they are just ‘travel-freak’ that whenever they feel like going to another country, they fake sickness?

It is possible for you to argue that the president should travel out for a proper medical care because he is the number 1 citizens of the country. You also need to ask: from whose money is the bill being paid?

These are taxes of the common man who can only afford public health centers with no drugs. These people pay taxes from their labour power and yet the taxes could not be used to provide standard clinics, roads and basic amenities for them. Instead, same money is being used by few people just because they were elected by these same people to take care of their taxes.

In reality, the masses are always at the receiving end. They are nothing but pawns in a world where their existence means ‘nothing’ to those they elected into power to protect their lives and properties.

What do you think? Should leaders use tax payers’ money to take care of themselves? Why can't they stay in their countries to be treated by their doctors? 

Thanks for reading. Your boy @smyle the philosopher.