It’s the 61st Independence Day and I was just going through the list of achievements touted by our nation. While most of the list relates to the past glory (which is pretty disheartening), there is one item of the current era that leads the list – the fact that we are the largest democracy (and that too, in a neighbourhood that hardly has any sane democratic model). This triggered the obvious chain of thought – is democracy really an achievement?
Lets first consider our democratic setup – Each of us is a part of a constituency and the constituency as a whole elects one person to be its voice in the legislature. This is the sum and substance of the Universal Adult Franchise that the fathers of our constitution envisaged; Universal – all people, irrespective of caste, sex, etc., Adult – as long as they are greater than 18 years of age, Franchise – have an equal right to elect their representatives. I find an obvious discrepancy here. Let me give an example. I stay at the LB Nagar constituency that has a population of say 1 lakh. There is another friend of mine, who stays in the neighbouring constituency which has a population of, say, 50000. As each constituency has one representative in the parliament, it means that the value of my opinion is 1 part of a lakh while my friend’s opinion has a value of fifty thousandth, the double of my value. A typical case of equal right but unequal vote, isn’t it?
Have you ever had your hair cut by a gardener, or maybe your TV repaired by a potter? If you are sane, then the answer is a loud NO. When for such trivial jobs we go to the experts, why is it that when it comes to our rulers, we are ready to accept anyone – not even questioning if he/she is fit for it or not?
Next, let me take the typical functioning of our democracy. In the last general elections, the voter turnout was around 45%. For ease of calculation, let’s take it as 50%. Of this the current ruling coalition, at no point of time (remember, the coalition partners keep changing; more about it later), had more than 60% of vote share. Going by simple math, what this means is that at no point in time this government had a backing of more than 30%. Put in other word, 70% (a huge majority, if I may point out), directly or indirectly, disapprove of the ruling government in a functional democracy. Indeed a democratic setup!
You know the greatest fallacy of multi party democracy? It doesn’t allow for the optimal matching of capabilities and responsibilities. Let me make myself clear. Lets say the best person to head Finance is in Party A while the best for HR is in Party B and the best Prime Ministerial candidate in C. Do you think that given our current setup, these three will join forces and give us the government that works? Well here we have the biggest blunder of democracy – the split of resources which countries like ours cannot afford. Our constitution is great not because the makers were divided but because they were united. This has not been seen ever since.
Have you ever wondered about the cost of the elections? The official machinery expends around 30 days in the election effort – tones of resources are expended, setups revamped…. The last general election (April 2004) cost the exchequer around 1000 crores. And this is the small part……the parties outspend the government many times over. Imagine what can be done with such huge sums….what I am asking is a simple cost benefit analysis. Does the benefit of democracy justify its cost?
Democracy doesn’t just mean I have a right to vote, it means I have a right to be a part of the decision making process, a right to be a member of the legislature. The right is given on paper but let me just show you what it entails to exercise this right. Firstly, tons of money (without which you may not even get a party ticket. even the commission asks for deposits from the contestants). Next in the list would be the muscle power. And the sad list goes on. What kind of democracy is it when criminals with money have a greater chance of framing the rules than the normal law abiding citizens.
Democracy is based on the assumption that the majority is always right, so the minority, even if they are the sane part of the group, can be over-ruled. There is a famous quote in Telugu that says “Even if the whole world says otherwise, a pig will remain a pig and Nandi (the sacred vehicle of Lord Shiva) will remain Nandi.” Democracy ensures that the people get the government that they deserve, not the one they need. Thus a knowledgeable society gets a sane leader while a misinformed one get some one to take them down the spiral.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against democracy (an article such as this in a dictatorial regime would have sent me to gallows), but I am against the hype surrounding it. Democracy is a utopian concept. Like perfect competition, it requires that there is no informational asymmetry, that all of the world is sane and there is no caste, religion etc. murkying the vision of the electorate.
I have presented before you the problem. What could be the solution…well I am not sure of it. A meritocracy maybe, but that’s for discussion and consensus – after all we are still in a democracy :)
