Practising Democracy

Democracy is a form of Governance that is run by the whole population or ruled by the representatives of the population. Or you can say “A Government of the people, for the people by the people.” The main objective of a Government is to provide good governance. The objective of good governance is to provide the citizens freedom, prosperity, peace, protection of their rights, their participation in governance etc., Good governance has nothing to do with the form of governance.

One has to make it clear what attributes the success and failure of the form of Governance – the System or the people who run the system. Irrespective of the problems with the system, if one is determined to provide results, he will. If he decided to exploit the limitations of the system, then he will. When this exploitation happens in democracy, it is the not the ruler alone to be blamed but also its citizens!

I knew little about other countries so I discuss on Indian democracy only. Whether democracy is practiced in its sense is a rhetorical question that needs an answer. I have freedom of expression; or else, I would not be writing such whining blogs blaming Governments and get away easily with that. Peace is present though hijacked at times; however, my participation in governance needs a lot to be desired. I am interested but the politicians have conditioned the arena in such a manner that outsiders would never make an attempt to enter. Democracy has become dynastic-democracy. We are left with no options but to choose from the existing rotten lot.

At the outset, let us brainstorm some suggestions instead of discuss the system per se. Suggestions have erupted after experiencing problems in the system. Instead of elaborating on the problems, I would like to focus on the suggestions.

When we say representatives of the population, it has its inherent limitations. The first is obviously the numbers. Whoever has more number gets the opportunity to rule. This is the easiest solution one can always have. Shall we throw some light in this regard? In a country that is as vast as ours, X is popular in one corner and Y is popular in the other end. Fortunately, X belongs to an area that is twice as big as the area Y belongs to. Thus, X gets more numbers & will get the opportunity to rule. Is this the right way of electing our ruler?

• Shouldn’t the ruler get the approval to rule from all areas across the country?
• Or else, shouldn’t we lay down a rule specifying that the party that needs to rule must have a certain percentage of votes from all parts of the country?
  

The other problem is the number statistics. Ironically, every election does not record 100% voting. Hardly has it lingered around 40 to 50%. This means 50% of the people have already disapproved the contestants to rule. Out of the balance 50%, the ruler hardly gets 30% of the votes and is declared as winner. However, in reality, he is approved to rule only by 15% of the people. He is declared as the ruler. Is this the right democracy?

One might ask why you didn’t exercise your voting right. It is a bitter a truth that politics today has none other than notorious criminals. When one has to choose his representative, he has to ascertain who is the lesser-harmful criminal? If one is not satisfied with the contestants, why should he/she vote?

• If I can have the right of voting, shouldn’t I have the right of rejection also?
• Can there be an option of “none of the above” along with other contestants?

Another issue is Parties claim that our ruler will be chosen by the elected representatives. Can I vote for a faceless leader? There were occasions that we were ruled by Prime Ministers who did not face the election but made back-door entry through Rajya Sabha. None of the voters would have even imagined while voting that they will be ruled by a Prime Minister like Deve Gowda! Is not this an irony? Can you call this a democracy?

• When I vote, I should know who will be the Prime Minister I am voting for ?

The local representative I prefer and the Prime Minister I prefer are from different parties. Then how do I vote? In either way, I am going against my wish that is against democracy also.

My vote must have two options. One for local representative and the other for Prime Minister

Blame it on frustration or laziness or lack of interest, the turnout during election always remained poor. People take pride in boycott voting.

• Non-voters should be penalized or punished
• Voters should have the facility to vote from any corner of the country

Democracy is a Government of the people, by the people & for the people but the reality is Govt OFF the people; BUY the people & FRAUD the people. It has become a routine poor people are wooed by freebies, instant money and voting is manipulated. When people promise and did not keep it, they are punished but politicians promise do nothing still go scott-free. They say they are punished by voting out. But is this a punishment? Five years is too long a period for such crooks to damage the country! Is this right?

• Annual appraisal of the representative by elected personnel should be implemented. Failed candidates should be barred from contesting

It is not the system that fails us but those who run it. I am sure most of these suggestions are difficult to implement. However, discussions on these suggestions would pave a way for protecting the system from malpractices. Democracy fairly exists in its sense however; it needs improvement in its implementation. This will happen. I am confident.