Featured Article

What the story of Buddhist Monks Can Teach Us About Decentralized Governance

When we think of Buddhist monks, we might imagine a very strict order: elders at the top, younger monks quietly obeying them, and everyone following the same rules across the world. But this picture isn’t quite right.

In fact, the Buddha designed the monastic community—the Sangha—to work in a very different way. He didn’t want a single person or institution controlling everything. Instead, he built a system that was local, flexible, and guided by mutual respect and shared decisions.

Let’s look at how it works.

At the heart of the ancient Buddhist monastic life is a collection of rules called the Vinaya. When I was a monk, I studied a large part of it. This is a detailed set of rules and practices meant to help monks live peacefully and ethically not harming the others. One of its most interesting ideas is that big decisions should be made together, as a group.

This group action is called a Sanghakamma. It happens when monks gather in a local area (called a sīmā) and discuss something important—like who to ordain, how to handle disputes, or what to do if a rule is broken. They try to reach full agreement. If everyone agrees, the decision is valid. Even if someone is senior, they don’t get to decide everything on their own. Respect for experience matters, but not at the cost of group harmony. The idea is simple: wisdom should guide, not control. This system is not about being perfect or always agreeing. It’s about listening, discussing, and finding common ground—together. Harmony matters.

Secondly, there are no Headquarters and no bosses.

A non-Buddhist might wonder if Buddhist monasteries around the world follow orders from a global leader—like a head office. But the Vinaya doesn’t work like that. It was never meant to create a central authority. In fact, Buddha explicitly said on his deathbed that no single person should be a central authority of the order. Each monastic community is responsible for itself. It sets its own boundaries. It holds its own meetings. It decides what to do based on local needs, using the shared rules as a guide. This keeps things flexible and rooted in real life.

Of course, this also means there’s no one to “enforce” the rules from above. Everything depends on the monks’ willingness to follow the spirit of the Vinaya. The system works best when monks care deeply about doing what is right—not because someone tells them to, but because they choose it together.

But Governments see differently than Buddha.

In some countries—like Myanmar and Thailand—the state has created official Buddhist authorities, often with a high-ranking monk (like a Supreme Patriarch) at the top. These state-approved structures help organize things across the country. But they also add a layer of control that the original Vinaya never intended.

This raises a difficult question: does the state’s version of Buddhism match the Sangha’s own ideals? If not, what does happen? Can monks still truly govern themselves when government set the rules? The truth is, the Sangha in these places often has limited power to change the system. The result is a mix: part religious, part political. And the political forces definitely manipulate the religious mass for their goals and gains. And their manipulations often works with the people who are not actually aware of the rules set by the Buddha.

The beauty of the ancient Buddhist monastic system is that it trusts people to take responsibility together. It values discussion, care, and shared effort. It's core value is Ahimsa (Do No Harm). It doesn’t believe in controlling others through power or fear. Instead, it invites people to live by example—and to help others do the same.

But like all beautiful things, it is also fragile. Without sincere effort and active understanding, the system can weaken. If monks don’t meet, talk, or reflect together, the structure breaks down. If outside forces dominate, the community can lose its independence. Even so, the Vinaya reminds us that good governance doesn’t need to be centralized. It can be local. It can be cooperative. It can be human.

The original Sangha's emphasis on the community governing itself, making decisions together (aiming for consent), fostering solidarity and trust, and the path requiring deep personal honesty and development look very similar to the Self-Management and Wholeness principles of Teal organizations. The way the Sangha spread and adapted also has a flavor of an organic, "living system" evolution, even if their core spiritual purpose was unchanging. The Buddha kind of created an organization, emphasizing principles of autonomy, community responsibility, and personal integrity over top-down control, long before modern ideas about organizational structure came along. Of course, the context was spiritual and ethical, not running a business, but the style of governance has striking parallels.

And perhaps, in a world filled with power struggles and control, this small, ancient idea still has something to teach us.