Skip to main content

The Failure of Democracy

If the Godfather wanted to get elected, he probably would. –Oscar Wilde

Democracy is the most successful form of government, we are told. It’s the same form which powers the governments of the West, and all the powerful nations in the world. Almost all other independent countries have democratically elected governments. Those that have not want to have democracy as a symbol of independence, supremacy of the people and a sign of progress.

But let’s just hang in here for a minute. Is democracy the ultimate symbol of independence and supremacy of the people? Sure. It’s a government of the people, for the people and by the people. People elect representatives amongst themselves to represent their say in government. These representatives draw salaries, from taxes collected from the people, and go around governing those that have elected them to power.

Whoa! Suddenly, democracy does not appear to be all that pro-equality. But moving on… While I would like to make this post as general as possible, I am basing a lot of my arguments based on the Indian democracy, mainly because of my ignorance with regards to democratic systems in other countries. So, in an attempt to make this post as general as possible, I shall begin by tackling the key principles on which democracy is based, and then move to specifics.

Firstly, we have the very process of a democratic election. A democratic election involves people choosing from a list of candidates, their representative to the house. Now, the very word “representative” is a problem. A representative is one who “represents” the voice of the people. However, such a representative would spell doom for any democratic country.

Consider the true representative. He will voice only the concerns of the people he represents. Now, consider a representative who has been elected by the fisher-folk. He will forward their concerns regarding fisheries, push for laws that promote the community he represents. Now, consider another representative who represents the views of another community, say loggers. He will voice a different set of concerns. Such a situation would lead to chaos in the house. Utter chaos! A hundred voices voicing a hundred different thoughts. Yet, not one of the voices will ever voice foreign policy, or security; those little things essential for the very freedom of the people that democracy claims to protect.

So, we have a representative that must, in the interest of the nation, voice the concerns that are not of the people he claims to represent. This direct contradiction to the principle that democratically elected representatives represent the interests of the people is the first failure in the fabric of democracy.

Next, I discuss the premise that the elected representatives will always be “good”, i.e. that they will do what is best for the country and for the people. As we have seen in the earlier argument, the elected representative may, in national interest, have to voice his opinion on matters that don’t concern the people he claims to represent. By a corollary, we must assume that not anyone can become a representative. A person who files his candidature for election must necessarily be one well versed with the political scenario, a person who is willing to dedicate his life to the service of the people. Such folks are hard to find.

Contesting an election itself is a high-risk business. Not only does campaigning take up a lot of resources, the outcome may not be favourable either. This means that only a select few people who have taken up politics as a career will continue in the political world; which in turn gives voters one-out-of-x kind of choice when they cast their votes. Further, the elected representatives politicians will remain in power (in all probability) until the next election; and the ones who elected them to power can do little to change that.

While we are on the topic of funding campaigns; most of the funds for any political campaign come in from corporates. These funds are never given for free; they constitute a tacit agreement that includes lobbying. So, these politicians are elected by us people, and yet, they agree to lobby for corporates. The result? Laws that are anti-people, and which make ordinary people “felons”, to be served as slaughter for corporate lawyers. Laws that encourage monopolies, discourage competition, and spell doom for the free market; the other institution that has failed rather miserably.

Further, elections will be successful only if the people are responsible and well-informed. For the people to be informed, we need an honest and unbiased media, which is again, a fictitious entity. In case you are shaking your head and clicking your tongue; consider this: almost everyone has some prejudices and biases. Why should the media be any different? After all, the media consists only of people like us, but those that have taken journalism as a profession. While journalistic ethics would demand that journalists remain unbiased, and report the truth; such an occurrence is rather rare. The journalists in the media often get swayed away by political spin-doctors; and in turn swing our opinions towards political entities.

Of course, India is not a democracy, it’s a functioning anarchy. Witness any debate in the parliament, and you’ll know why. John Kenneth Galbraith was right when he described India thus. The public is uninformed, and freebies are useful to decide election outcomes. A policy of “divide and rule” invoked by the British has been perfected by our politicos. Laws are frequently changed to suit certain influential individuals. Politicians who actually do work, but refuse to toe the party line are gagged and sacked. The fact is that as citizens of India, we may soon lose our freedom of speech on the internet, thanks to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Act. Of course, the people are sovereign, hence the elected representatives of the people are sovereign, hence the majority of the elected representatives of the people are sovereign, hence the person representing the majority of the elected representatives is sovereign. These were the arguments that lead to the death of democracy in India in the 1970s during the time of the emergency. I see the same arguments being repeated once again.

Of course, if you wish to read about the failure of the parliamentary system in India, I would recommend reading “The Parliamentary System” by Arun Shourie. It’s an excellent read, coming from someone intimately informed of the political system, both as an observer, when he was a journalist, and as a minister, who has seen the innermost workings of the system.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ERROR_SUCCESS

ERROR_SUCCESS. This macro would be familiar to all those who have done some programming in WIN32. It is the output of the GetLastError() function to check the thread's last error state when no error has occurred. Weird, isn't it? I mean, if it is a success, then why is it marked as an error in the macro? This is one example of a badly made API. APIs are considered bad when programming in them becomes non-intuitive. Software is said to be bad (or said to suck) when it seems counter-intuitive to the user. There is one very simple example of this. Start notepad. Type in any text. Click on close. The message that you see is: This makes no sense to me as a user. Of course, the programmer follows the approach that he creates a temporary file called Untitled , and in that file he allows the user to make all his changes. But how am I, as a user to understand that? A similar disconnect occurs even between two different programmers. That is why it takes a whole lot of effort to make

On Harry Potter and why I dislike the series

There could not be a better time for this post. There could not have been a worse time for this post. Now that the penultimate movie of the series is out, and my facebook wall filled with people who loved the movie. But this is something I really wanted to say, and I shall say it anyway. Harry Potter is pathetic literature. Now, you must be wondering why I say that. There are many reasons. Firstly, the storyline itself is flawed. When a writer sits down to write anything, he/she must set up some essential rules about what is happening. These rules must remain constant irrespective of how many times he/she changes his/her mind. This is so that the readers are allowed to have some sensibility in what they are reading. In the fourth book, Rowling goes ahead and kills Cedric. Then, at the end of the book, the horseless carriages are there again. Nothing special. We all knew that they are horseless. But then comes the fifth book, and BAM, the horses are actually winged beasts that only thos

Elements of a Story: The Whispers

I'm compelled to begin each post with a meta. That way, my blog posts seem less like essays or dissertations, and more like diary entries, or web logs. So here goes... I started this blog a little over a year ago. The main purpose of this blog was to experiment with styles of writing, and find an effective outlet for all the subjects I wish to rant about; saving my classmates the agony of having to listen to them. As I wrote this blog, I've experimented with so many styles, and have received comments claiming that my work is a shameless copy greatly inspired by so-and-so author/work. Fact is that I simply chanced upon that style. I read, so obviously, my work shall reflect the styles of those I admire, but I've worked out so many styles without even knowing that they exist, only to be informed of them later. Recently, I've been struck with the seeming absence of whispers as an element of a story. The more I've thought of the subject, the more I've been convince