The Indian political system is a bizarre drama. Rather than having a sensible discussion about topics, the politicians are involved in a showy, dramatic world that looks like B-grade movie plots.
Currently, one supposed holy man is carrying out a great fight against corruption in India. He has many followers, to whom he is a fearless leader, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. He claims that yoga can cure cancer, AIDS, and oh, homosexuality. I posted about this person earlier, so I would advise reading that if you need a primer.
The other guy raising some dust is Anna Hazare, a social reformer who has taken it upon himself to rid India of corruption. This person isn't an elected official, and the way he intends to fight to rid corruption is to, wait for it, fast until death. Unless his demands are met, in which case this person will deign to eat something and save himself the plight of death.
We have a non-elected person threatening to kill himself if India doesn't enact legislation of his choice.
Right.
This isn't a way forward in a democracy. This is madness: the emotional blackmail from a father-figure who refuses to eat something unless you do exactly as he asks. Why do we bother electing representatives if we can have one man who can change public policy by threatening death? Isn't this terrorism of a subtle nature? Isn't this a hostage situation? A democracy is made of people, where each has an equal say. And suddenly a man comes along and threatens to die unless you do exactly as he says.
A democracy is the rule by everyone. Not by a single man, no matter how well respected and well loved he may be. Allowing a single person to dictate public policy sets a dangerous precedent, especially if the mechanic of enforcing that policy is emotional threats. Free India had no leader bigger than Nehru, and he often cautioned against letting Nehru be a dictator.
I don't like the current crop of politicians, they are inept, corrupt, and they look for personal gain rather than general good. But this emotional blackmail is not the answer. The answer is to turn corruption into a political issue, to have politicians and citizens debate on the specifics of how we will remove corruption.
This is a test of the Indian democracy, a rule by the people. Citizens, every one of them, should be involved. Not just one man, no matter how morally outright.
I have great respect for Anna Hazare and India needs many more people like him. But I have greater respect for a functioning democracy, and India needs a functioning democracy even more.
Currently, one supposed holy man is carrying out a great fight against corruption in India. He has many followers, to whom he is a fearless leader, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. He claims that yoga can cure cancer, AIDS, and oh, homosexuality. I posted about this person earlier, so I would advise reading that if you need a primer.
The other guy raising some dust is Anna Hazare, a social reformer who has taken it upon himself to rid India of corruption. This person isn't an elected official, and the way he intends to fight to rid corruption is to, wait for it, fast until death. Unless his demands are met, in which case this person will deign to eat something and save himself the plight of death.
We have a non-elected person threatening to kill himself if India doesn't enact legislation of his choice.
Right.
This isn't a way forward in a democracy. This is madness: the emotional blackmail from a father-figure who refuses to eat something unless you do exactly as he asks. Why do we bother electing representatives if we can have one man who can change public policy by threatening death? Isn't this terrorism of a subtle nature? Isn't this a hostage situation? A democracy is made of people, where each has an equal say. And suddenly a man comes along and threatens to die unless you do exactly as he says.
A democracy is the rule by everyone. Not by a single man, no matter how well respected and well loved he may be. Allowing a single person to dictate public policy sets a dangerous precedent, especially if the mechanic of enforcing that policy is emotional threats. Free India had no leader bigger than Nehru, and he often cautioned against letting Nehru be a dictator.
I don't like the current crop of politicians, they are inept, corrupt, and they look for personal gain rather than general good. But this emotional blackmail is not the answer. The answer is to turn corruption into a political issue, to have politicians and citizens debate on the specifics of how we will remove corruption.
I have great respect for Anna Hazare and India needs many more people like him. But I have greater respect for a functioning democracy, and India needs a functioning democracy even more.
Fasting is wrong! Why did Gandhi fast, and unto death regularly?
ReplyDeleteLegally elected reps are sacrosanct, sure, that is a given. When all the persons listed are rapists and murderers then whom do you choose. That is how Lalu Yadavs come with thumping majority, and then foist their wives or sons on the chair.
Democracy is reduced to Goonocracy.
Goons also lead a whole nation to the garden path. Gen Colin Powell (Read Bush Jr) led the UNO and the world by fictitious ppt slides that raiding Iraq is a good idea for the larger public interest. It was only to help themselves through the re-con contracts.
Why do only 60% people vote, they know they don't have a choice.
You mean, in a democracy, man has no voice because he has surrendered his voice to his elected reps, howsoever impotent they are.
Supreme court have to take suo motu cognizance of certain ills of society, because no-one is interested, for larger public good. Like Delhi Pollution was sky high due to kerosene mixed in petrol in three wheelers. Every elected rep was disinterested in the issue for fear or greed.
You mean a common man MUST wait for an elected rep to raise such concerns.
I don't think so.
You mean Gandhi was elected for something by some electorate. I mean IG and RG and SoniaG as well.
Of course they were later legitimized by following legal processes. What about SanjayG.
So much for Demo-cracy in the Country! Crazy.
When Gandhi fasted, did we have a functioning democracy?
ReplyDeleteMuch of your argument is constructing a straw-man, so it is pointless to argue with it issue by issue. I never said people need to wait and watch, and I never said that people have no voice.
Democracy is governance by the people. One person (who isn't even an elected official) threatening to kill himself over some issue isn't a long term solution for this. Do you want every single issue to be debated by people on death-beds? The way to solve this in a democracy is to debate this in public, turn this into a criterion for electing the next representative, and holding them responsible if they don't deliver.
By raising someone on a pedestal for threatening to fast unto death, we are doing democracy a great disservice. We are relinquishing our duty, of governing our own country.
That's precisely the question, do we have a "functioning" democracy! You said it.
ReplyDeleteThis is the mother of all ills, a dysfunctional democracy, rather corrupto-cracy.
Manmohan declares he had no choice but to allow Raja to plunder the nation. If PM is not responsible, who is delivering the goods and services supposed to be the fruits of the good governance?
Who will save the king? Who is John Galt!