Is democracy actually government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' as Abraham Lincoln had described it once?
A Lie: Democracy literally means rule by the people. Since taking the opinion of the entire population on every issue is cumbersome, people elect their representatives to govern them. This is done through periodic elections.
Unfortunately, the voter turnout in elections is 50-60% in most countries. Again, first-past-the-post system in which the person who gathers the highest number of votes is declared the winner effectively ensures that even a person with the support of only a minority of the population, say 20-25%, can win the election if s/he can get all of them to vote.
The party system makes it more complicated. The political parties may field candidates who are disliked by the electorate based merely on their proximity to the decision-making centres (read: high command) rather than on the basis of popularity or competence. Again, all or some policies of a political party may be against the general opinion of the public. In such cases, people vote not to select the most desirable candidate as it should be, but to eliminate the least desirable ones. The public has no option other than doing this as it costs money to contest in elections and hence, an uncorrupt political party is an oxymoron.
Even if all the voters vote and the desirable candidate wins, a majority of the decisions a representative takes will be against the wishes of his supporters. Also, only a minority of these representatives actually take decisions. Others remain puppets. If they choose to disobey, there are the party whips to show them their place. Hence, the decision-making power remains concentrated in the hands of a select few as it has been for the past two millenia. Why do we then call it democracy?
A Religion: Any mass movement assumes a quasi-religious appearance at some point of time. You can say that it is in its dark ages when people are persecuted for saying anything aginst its high priests - in this case, against politicians. Journalists and activists who try to bring out the deficiencies in the system (read corruption, lack of transparency, illegalities, etc.) are routinely victimised in any democracy. Elections are mere mass rituals. You can sense it by the euphoria before and on the election day, the promises of creating heaven on earth and the near-angelic candidates. Any action against this sham is blasphemy - sedition. Any word against a high priest (read: a powerful politician) will result in ignominy. Any person who refuses to donate to the ruling political party when asked to do so becomes an outcaste - he will have to forever revolve around government offices to get his work done, will be treated shabbily and tortured emotionally. Do you need any more proof of the fact that we are living in the dark ages of democracy?
The Science of Vote Banks: Power is captured nowadays more through whipping up of fear rather than promises of manna from heaven.The political parties divide the electorates into vote banks based on imaginary or real fears. Bush's re-election based on anti-terrorism plank, Conservatives' election based on the anti-deficit plank and so on are examples. Citizens are thus being forced to live in a state of perpetual fear and never-ending state surveillance of their lives. What are we so afraid of? Do our fears have any solid basis? Did Iraq actually have chemical or nuclear weapons? Did the attack on Afghanistan actually make the world a safer place to live in? Will the Conservative government in Britain manage to arrest the slide of Britain?
It is logical to be afraid when important decisions are made in the name of the people when they actually derive no benefit from those decisions.
So with the public divided on inconsequential matters, the winning an election becomes a matter of merely sounding and appearing more righteous than your opponent on those. Or making your opponent appear dirty. Chances of winning increase when you 'belong' to the 'majority' or the 'significant minority.' It is the game of numbers - divisions based on race, caste, class and even the schools the candidates attended and the nationality of their spouses. Which century are we living in?
Why should the electorate be bothered about the details of the private lives of candidates if they have good track records? Why should we be made to listen to name-callings, accusations, retractions, etc on irrelevant matters? 'Divide and conquer' has conquered politics. With ugly consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment