Do away with democracy?

[JustaLittleUnwell]

This is a continuation of discussions on Vj's latest post on his(?) blog - "The Mock race"



Vj is obviously disillusioned with the democratic process. And wonders aloud if instead of all this election hype, should we just pick the best of our civil servants and hand the power over to them. My disagreeing comments sparked a debate and we decided to shift it here. So Vj, post away...... and others can join in too.

[CtrlAltDel]

i dont favor dictatorship, but i prefer the US presidential model and 2 (or maybe 3-4 at most) party system. it gives more stability esp to a vastly diverse country like India.

[ZC]

i dont favor dictatorship, but i prefer the US presidential model and 2 (or maybe 3-4 at most) party system. it gives more stability esp to a vastly diverse country like India.

again agree with c a d

[CtrlAltDel]

again agree with c a d

WOW! cant believe it...ZC agrees with ME...!!!!!

[JustaLittleUnwell]

i dont favor dictatorship, but i prefer the US presidential model and 2 (or maybe 3-4 at most) party system. it gives more stability esp to a vastly diverse country like India.

Going back a few years, the Congress in Tamil Nadu split up and a Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC) was formed (which is now back into the Congress fold), because the Congress high command in Delhi failed to address the aspirations of the Tamil people (i.e. removing Jayalalitha from power). And today, in AP, we see the TDP split and a TRC formed because the party failed to address the aspirations of a section of the people.



Without going into the merits of the above, but just considering the need for various people's point of view to be effectively represented, I think a multi-party democracy suits fine. We have situations where Congressmen of one state dont agree with Congressmen of another. If there were to be only 2 parties, it maybe difficult to represent the multitude of issues faced by such a diverse populace as ours.

[ZC]

i dont favor dictatorship, but i prefer the US presidential model and 2 (or maybe 3-4 at most) party system. it gives more stability esp to a vastly diverse country like India.

Going back a few years, the Congress in Tamil Nadu split up and a Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC) was formed (which is now back into the Congress fold), because the Congress high command in Delhi failed to address the aspirations of the Tamil people (i.e. removing Jayalalitha from power). And today, in AP, we see the TDP split and a TRC formed because the party failed to address the aspirations of a section of the people.

Without going into the merits of the above, but just considering the need for various people's point of view to be effectively represented, I think a multi-party democracy suits fine. We have situations where Congressmen of one state dont agree with Congressmen of another. If there were to be only 2 parties, it maybe difficult to represent the multitude of issues faced by such a diverse populace as ours.

agreed........ZC changes lanes

[Vj]

Hi JLU



It took me a while to discover this, so am joining late



Democracy is certainly a good form of government, but it has a serious flaw - it is entirely dependent on public opinion. For it to work properly and realise its true objectives, some conditions have to be met:



1.People have to be more or less equally educated to be 'aware' of the implications of choosing a particular leader. They have to be intelligent enough to consider the pros and cons, long-term benefits, and benefits of not just a region but of the entire state/country in question.



2.When people are not sane enough to choose the right leader, at least the chosen ones have to be sane enough to work toward right objectives without exploiting their power, and giving more importance to the well-being of the public than about staying in power.



3.When neither the public nor the leaders are sane, at least the people in media - the ones who can influence public opinion - should be sane.



Since neither is true in this country, democracy has utterly failed. People with power and money do anything and get away with it, common man is forced to be silent and he suffers, and there is all chaos around.



I don't pretend to know the best form of government for this country, but I don't feel anything wrong in experimenting. When the existing one is not doing great anyways, what will we lose? We have such brilliant young people, able and intelligent... Why don't we choose from such people? To borrow a quote from a Pakistani graduate - 'We do not need politicians; we need statesmen.'



If nothing works, dictatorship isn't a bad idea

[Vj]

I thought it appropriate to share the following opinion (source - The Economist/Letters of the week section. url - http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... id=2646995 ):



Can't afford democracy

SIR – For the hundreds of millions of abject poor in Asia, the advent of democracy has no bearing at all (“That other miracle”, April 24th). To the illiterate poor, democracy is nothing but a bourgeois concept that has benefited only the middle- and upper-income groups. The economically deprived bottom 20% of the population—whether in India, Indonesia or China—is, and will remain, deprived regardless of whether there is an autocratic or democratic government. If anything, autocracies can take unpleasant but pragmatic decisions that are nearly impossible for an elected government.



A. Farjad Ahmed

Dhaka, Bangladesh

[ZC]

hello Vj: if people are given ready made.....no need for democracy or dictatorship....donkey can rule the country.......

[Vj]

Hi ZC



As if the ones ruling now are any better than donkeys When donkeys are in majority, donkey will be king. So, logically, we deserve the politicians we have.



I appreciate your idea

[JustaLittleUnwell]

Vj, glad you found your way finally.

Democracy is certainly a good form of government, but it has a serious flaw - it is entirely dependent on public opinion. For it to work properly and realise its true objectives, some conditions have to be met:

1.People have to be more or less equally educated to be 'aware' of the implications of choosing a particular leader. They have to be intelligent enough to consider the pros and cons, long-term benefits, and benefits of not just a region but of the entire state/country in question.

2.When people are not sane enough to choose the right leader, at least the chosen ones have to be sane enough to work toward right objectives without exploiting their power, and giving more importance to the well-being of the public than about staying in power.

3.When neither the public nor the leaders are sane, at least the people in media - the ones who can influence public opinion - should be sane.

Just a simple question to you - who decides who's sane and who's not?

[Vj]

Hi JLU



Great! We are perhaps going to the crux of the matter. There's an implicit question here - 'What is sanity?'Because the people who decide would differ, if they do, in opinion only about this definition. If all people agree on one definition, there'd be no difficulty in choosing the person who fits that.



This is quite tricky, because there's no empirical data to support any statement in this case, for it's purely logical. Leaving the individual aside, let's consider what it implies in case of governance. I may be wrong, but let me write what I think of it anyways. A 'sane' citizen is the one who views a leader as someone who contributes to the greatest common good. And a 'sane' leader is the one who contributes toward the same. Thus, a professional who detests a good leader just because he cut incentives and benefits for his profession for a year is not quite a sane citizen.



While it may not be possible to be absolutely unselfish, yet it is not impossible to weigh the selfish and altrusitic impulses in matters that concern a multitude, and give the right importance to the right thing.



Now, as you asked, who decides? I don't know Let me try - since people are electing, people should decide. But then, there are lot of probs here - since it's based on opinions. There are people who believe Gandhi was a great soul, and there are people who detest him. However, again, majority counts. If a majority of us stand against all this and demand a better govt, I believe we'll have it at least two decades down the line. Hypothetical, but not bad to imagine



As I said, I may be wrong.

[ZC]

who is a terrorist



1.) America which is the country which went to war the most no.of times.......hence greater no.of prisoner abuses....and hence creating people like Osama



or



2.) Osama and others who are killing the westerners





WHO i am no God to decide that

[JustaLittleUnwell]

Vj, thanks for defining 'sanity' for me :) I was thinking it is about having a functional mind. Anyway, I'm enlightened :)



I believe the Indian electorate are 'sane' for the following reasons:

Anti-incumbency: For the chattering classes, this maybe another 'factor', just like the feel-good thingie (i'm sure now it has become dont-feel-good), but for the voter who matters, it's about bringing down a non-performing government. And he/she almost always has, but for some rare exceptions like Bihar (the dynamics of which is anyway beyond my limited power of understanding. But I wouldn't venture to call the Bihari voter as 'insane' though. Maybe he/she has reasons to continue the status quo. "Why criticize what you don't understand?" - as Sepultura would put it)

Voter turn-out: The educated and aware citizen (and hence 'sane') would never venture out to stand in the hot sun and cast his/her vote. (To be honest, I didn't - and i'm not very proud about it either). Whereas, the illiterate and ignorant citizen has always strived to be a stake-holder in the government forming process, no matter what. It moves me no end when I think of the brave women and men of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, who demonstrated to the world once again their faith in the democratic process, while the shadow of the gun was looming large over them. I would consider them at least as courageous as our brave jawans guarding our frontiers, if not more. And a big pat on the back for our outgoing PM to have acknowledged them in his address, even in his lowest moment.

As for the leadership, it is both sane and insane in equal measure, and I would like to press for more electoral reforms to rectify the situation. I'm not looking at making a minimum qualification criterion. Maybe something like a 'no crime record', and proof of serving the respective constituency for a reasonable period. (A rag-picker / someone who has swept the streets for a few months would qualify too, for he/she has served the community in a true sense as compared to someone whose specialization was 'dadagiri'. More qualified candidates would be the SHG members, grassroot NGO representatives etc.)



Reg. media, it's a business, and it'll do what it'll do to improve circulation / viewership and ad revenues.

[Vj]

Hi JLU



Was that a satirical compliment?



Well, I know that was certainly not the 'standard' definition of sanity, but I was attempting to apply it in case of political system, where the focus is not an individual but a multitude.



I cannot refute what you said. Indeed, that certainly was appreciable. The point is - the number of sane people is less than those of the insane.



As regards media, quite true, they are a business and I certainly am not suggesting that they forget about making money and turn into charitable institutions. All I'm saying is - they are into business, yes; but they are not selling commodities intended for utility. They are selling facts and opinions, so they better be more sensitive to it.



1.Thanks for the great points you've made.

2.Be proud that you stayed away from voting

[Lucifer]

Democracy is an institution which guarantees that people only get the government they deserve. Nothing more, nothing less. It is us who are responsible for the political state of the country today. Without going into details, let me just pose one question. How many of you would be comfortable if tomorrow your children exress their desire to join politics? No, don't give me the 'it's a dirty place for my child to be in' crap. That is the reason. If good and young people do not take an active interest in politics, you really cannot expect much else.

[Vj]

Hi Lucifer



Well said!



We are verily responsible for the kind of chaos we are in. However, nothing changes by merely acknowledging this and continuing with life. The solution is a step beyond this - asking if we are happy with it or not.



If we are happy, then we should accept everything as is and never complain about anything.



If we are unhappy - and this is very important for today's youth - we have to find out how we can make things better. And nobody can do this except us young people. But it again comes back - how many young people would actually go for it? Because, if you see, young people are in politics even in the existing system; they take an active interest at that. Although that conforms to your suggestion, yet it has only contributed to chaos. Why? Because the intention of their joining politics is wrong. It's merely the desire for power that pulls them into it, not the desire to use that power for the benefit of the majority. It doesn't suffice if young people are actively involved in politics; their motive in doing so is more important. So, if two decades hence we have all young politicians, it doesn't guarantee a better country. All we need is a small bunch of intelligent, courageous and unselfish people, not thousand young politicians with misplaced priorities. And this hold true any time.

[Skeptic]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but in many of the discussions we see onchannels like ndtv, one feels that the younger lot speaks more sensibly than the rest. They seem more aware.... they empathise with several viewpoints and would not mind accepting a view that differs from theirs if it seems reasonable enough.... I feel there's hope...for democracy to work.



The easier solution is to say that let one great man take hold and with a kind of dictatorhsip transform a nation. I think it kind of goes against our basic nature(sorry for using heavy phrases)...for e.g, in a small family of 4, u feel frustrated to take somebody's orders for long, no matter how nice they r...

[black wizard]

in a small family of 4, u feel frustrated to take somebody's orders for long, no matter how nice they r...

dude, when u live with ur family u HAVE to take orders from someone(read mom) ...whether u like it or not

[Habitual Perfectionist]

Reminds me of an incident that happened in class the other day. We were discussing election results and a collegue started off on the usual "Middle class is the eternal sufferer" trip. My question to her was - When was the last time you voted? There was no response from her as she knew what I meant.



Good point brought up lucifer. I fully agree with you that Democracy gives people the government they deserve. We all talk about the wear and tear in our country's moral fabric etc. but who makes the fabric? its us. And if we are readily accepting that our moral fabric is torn, we might very well be a little more honest and accept that by letting this happen, we've failed in our duty as citizens.



These elections have been a watershed in more than one way. We've seen that the congress is way away from being a spent force. And I'm excited in a way about the congress victory because of certain positive factors. The previous government has done a lot of good work in several areas. So, the foundation has already been laid for a strong India. What looks so positive is the infusion of young, honest, committed and dedicated blood in the grand old party. Rahul Gandhi, Sachin Pilot, Sandeep Dikshit, Milind Deora, Jyotiraditya Scindia - a whole posse of young guys who are all equally strong candidates for PM after say another couple of terms in the parliament.



What I wanted to say through all this is that the biggest plus of a democracy is that it does pay off someday. Compare today's picture with what might have happened if we had a dictator instead? Thank your stars that we can atleast argue publicly on these topics. We have the power to shunt people out for non-performance. We certainly don't want Rajpath to turn into a Tiananmen Square.



It's true that a vast majority in our country is still uneducated and not very politically mature. But then, who said that if your bare hands are feeling the chill of an early winter morning, you should chop it off? Wear gloves instead, Stupid!!

[Vj]

There's a peculiar habit among us - if a point cannot be justified with sound reasons, then shift the balance with meaningless words like 'responsibility', 'duty', etc. To not exercise one's franchise is akin to his not being a 'responsible citizen', many say!!



You have ten goons to choose from, and if you refuse to choose, is it intelligence or irresponsible gesture? People use such lofty, shallow words as 'patriotism' and send young chaps to war, to kill one another for petty reasons. If one refuses, he's termed unpatriotic and coward! Same goes with elections. These are all words seen through the glass of prejudice. Intelligence is to look at everything from a larger perspective. And refusing to do the 'normal' deed doesn't imply irresponsibility or inaction or complacence, but at times - and especially in case of such large-scale issues - it implies discontentment with the existing system and a belief that it can be made better.



When nations take to war, great, rational men don't give up their belief in peace, even if it means risking imprisonment or even being thrown out as refugees. It doesn't mean they are irresponsible. On the contrary. When all choices available are equally bad, it is absolutely sensible to stay away and remain focused on the possibility of a better choice.



So, if all the chaps contesting for the seats are goons it is 'demon'cracy. And it is downright immature to justify the deed of voting with the highly misinterpreted words like responsibility and duty. Sorry, we need democracy.



Rationalising something to feel good, I'm afraid, won't take us anywhere. If something's good, it's good; if something's bad, it's bad. No matter what it is. Dealing with facts is the first step to realise anything better. When something is not working, it's better to start anew than hypnotise ourselves to feel good about it and wait for the better moment. Complacency, in some cases, simply kills. Siddhartha would've chosen to remain in the confines of the palace and with all the relations, and yet discover the truth. He perhaps might have discovered too, but then he would never have become the Buddha.

[JustaLittleUnwell]

What looks so positive is the infusion of young, honest, committed and dedicated blood in the grand old party. Rahul Gandhi, Sachin Pilot, Sandeep Dikshit, Milind Deora, Jyotiraditya Scindia - a whole posse of young guys who are all equally strong candidates for PM after say another couple of terms in the parliament.

A question that irks me is that would these gentlemen (and the ladies who've not been mentioned above) have found their place had they not been a Gandhi or a Pilot or a Dikshit or a Scindia? It would be wonderful to see brilliant youngsters passing out of our premier institutes like IITs / IIMs and so on, occupying chairs alongside the young blood mentioned above - they must be at least as competent as these, if not more.



Thinking on these lines, has anybody thought of joining a political party? I'm sure we have very eligible folks who could be leadership material, on these boards :) Is it worth exploring the possibility of cleaning the system from within? Now dont laugh at me, I havent been sleeping properly :D

[Habitual Perfectionist]

A question that irks me is that would these gentlemen (and the ladies who've not been mentioned above) have found their place had they not been a Gandhi or a Pilot or a Dikshit or a Scindia? It would be wonderful to see brilliant youngsters passing out of our premier institutes like IITs / IIMs and so on, occupying chairs alongside the young blood mentioned above - they must be at least as competent as these, if not more.

You do have a point there. These guys do owe a lot to their family name. But, that can also be used as an advantage by the gentlemen in question as they've been brought up in an environment which can teach them a lot. I don't see anything wrong in a dynasty as long as the family name is not misused and the scion is doing something noteworthy.

Thinking on these lines, has anybody thought of joining a political party? I'm sure we have very eligible folks who could be leadership material, on these boards Is it worth exploring the possibility of cleaning the system from within? Now dont laugh at me, I havent been sleeping properly

Well...have thought of it seriously. But then, if we do join any prominent party today, all that we can become is a polling agent unless we have a godfather to back us.



Extending my response to the previous point, let's give these youngsters some time. I'm quite optimistic that we're in for a lot of freshness in the political arena in the coming years. The performance of Omar Abdullah in the last parliament was exemplary. And these youngsters have been far more sensible than the old guard. So let's hope that tomorrow, it'll be much easier for atleast the generation after us, if not us, to enter politics without needing a name.

[akhilis2cool]

Mani Ratnams Yuva explores the same scenario of youngsters joining politics, vivek oberoi and ajay devgan become MLAs. I think it will make interesting viewing.

[CtrlAltDel]

...let's give these youngsters some time. I'm quite optimistic that we're in for a lot of freshness in the political arena in the coming years...

ya...that was something positive to come out of Election2004.

lets hope the fossils retire or become extinct before they cause more damage, and take the foreigners with them.

*glares at Harkishen Singh Surjeet and other assorted seniles angrily*