The Next Level of Democracy

......

Democracy – Government of the people, by the people, for the people. There is a natural tendency that the recurrences of ‘people’ in that oft quote phrase are all degenerate. If only that were true.


The maladied definition of democracy will be justified in this post. The kind of departure from ideal that most people would be used to is the exploitation of power, resources, and the electorate that representatives use to bolster their futures and enshrine their futures in the shrouds of economic security. While this, obviously is deplorable, the true trigger, and facilitator for this kind of blossoming corruption and bad administration lies in a more lamentable non-ideality – communalization. We don’t realize that policies that help others eventually come round to helping brothers and sisters, and even further down the line – to help us directly. True to Darwin’s theory, the opportunistic few among us (well atleast those that can ensnare their conscience in the straitjacket of silence) manipulate the situation to their needs, and in the end, become perpetrators of the kind mentioned earlier. WE could change – bringing about reform much faster than hoping for some ‘phoren-educated, truly empathetic, smart’ leader to come along, and I hope we do. But currently, no, magnanimity is not the victor in the battle of Dickensian human traits; and the system we have today is a result of base human tendencies, corrosively etching its expression on the hallowed, morally golden, selfless, and noble institution that is Democracy.

I’ve drawn your attention to these two points, and probably gotten you thinking about the possible systemic reforms. It’s not too unexpected that you’ve reached the end of a long, matted coir rope, having grazed a few neurons along the way – and are now defiantly expecting me to come up with a solution. Well, I’ve already voiced it – WE need to change. Not as individuals that publicly deride the system, and cast the spotlight on the hazardous infirmities in the characters, and policies of those well-oiled few that wish to represent us (although that does greatly help in mitigating the evil / apathy that will follow), but we need to change as a populace – and TRULY develop a collective voice; shouting matches between lobby groups need to stop, with everyone realizing that a small compromise today will find it’s way back around tomorrow. We live in a developing nation, and it is unreasonable for me to expect everyone to acknowledge this without developing the after taste of some sort of bitter envy about the denial of the comforts that the previous generation have had, at the expense of plundering the latter. But it can, and must be done sooner, rather than later, if we’re to prevent ourselves from doing the same for posterity.
Masticate on that, while I come back to one big change in the system and the expression of democracy that is being trialed. Since you’re probably sick of words – here, watch this



Yeah, the idea sounds very rosy – ask the populace and let them take the final call on policy matters. But does it work in all cases?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/21calif.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=print

Apart from the obvious lengthening of the whole procedure, and the subsequent costs incurred, there are also the cost implications of polling such a large group of people every time you want to use state funds, but with the fantastic job done by the telephone networks (kind of the purpose of the ad), a little business intelligence and CSR shown by the networks could work to make this a reality.

In short, any undertaking that doesn’t start from within (I’m starting to sound like Confucious / Lao/ average Indian college gyan/funda dispensary now) is doomed to have its fallacies – but not necessarily be plagued by them.

Asking, and the direct, greater involvement of people in democracy; as depicted above does have its advantages in the sense that

a) It introduces a feedback and review loop – which in turn shifts part of the blame onto the people : getting them more involved, proactively in deciding things for themselves.
b) Issues, and not abstract ideology become the known enemy – leaving no hiding room for the educated class to get involved in presenting their suggestions, and rousing themselves from inaction – Both of these points would encourage more people to get involved in politics, and also increase voter turnout
c) Decisions would be taken on a common consensus at a local level. We may assume that as a consequence, experience of locals is utilized positively, and cultural/ social/ societal needs are honoured better. (This can work as a disadvantage too, when the greater national interest conflicts with a certain communalized group – but that is essentially a damaging argument at a different level)
d) Encourages debate, and the growth of new ideas.
e) If NOTHING else, it requisitely brings about a much larger sense of transparency in the democratic process – something that the corrupt system needs to be force fed.

It’s worth a shot. Human beings have adapted to milk representational politics. It’s time that it adapted as well.

----- Thursday, May 21, 2009, 1503 hrs IST