Monday, February 11, 2008
Is Democracy Viable??
Democracy is a form of participative government and India as a state is a follower of Democracy. It is also considered desirable for the cooperatives (especially operating in India) to have a democratic structure. In India, where the major chunk of the voters or the members are constituted by so called "uneducated or less educated" people. Would it be viable to have democratic structure in benefit of state as well as the cooperatives when the decisions of the voters or members are more driven by some influential leaders and their stereotypes rather than the benefit of their own, or the organization?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Even in the older days,many of the political leaders were uneducated.Yet they played a pivtol role in independence movement.formal education itself is not necessary for caquiring knowledge about political scenerio of country.Our education system itself is faulty,hence on the sole basis of education we cannot say that a person is better well acquaintained than the one ,who is not formally educated.On the basis of the education system,which emphasises more on cramming ,we cannot make people aware and make them take appropriate decisisons.When we talk about india one more thing is quite astonishingthat most of the highly educated people even do not participate in the voting.Besides that true democracy is something in which everyone has the freedom to express his or her views irrespective of gender,class ,caste,education.In my point of view diversifaction is the true democracy.
"THE NEED OF TIME : proper and relevant education syllabus"
The word diversification in terms of politics and education in INDIA itself is creating confusions as it creates a multi-polar environment, which scatters the benefits on unfair grounds. today's scenarios are completely different where we really need leaders who should work just on the ground of financial policies which are immediate need of the country. if this is the need, the reforms can be introduced to change the education systems to the conditions catering to the needs of a next decade or so, rather than dancing on the same old tune. though it sounds weird, it is necessary because technology, policies, external environment and working style of government is changing abruptly after every decade.if the macro reforms are changing, then why not the micro. school and higher secondary education can be tuned to make it more industry specific taking the fact into consideration it does not creates a monotonous career shifts.
Democracy follow the principle of government of the people, for the people and by the people. When our constituent assembly was framing the constitution, it took care that people from all sections of society get proper rights to express their feelings. For expressing one's feelings he need not be educated. So education can not be the only criteria for viability of the democracy.
The other forms of governance like communism, autocracy and dictatorship have even worse implications..
"rational, self-interested individuals will not act [voluntarily] to achieve their common or group interests" Oslon quoted the very sentence. I will appreciate the same for our democracy. Because when interests are shared, rational actors, that is calculative thoughts about own interest get preferred over collective action, that is, to use the collective efforts for their own interest. Same is the condition of Indian Democracy. Group behaviour can be seen in best form when threr is any benefit or incentives are attached to it, rewards are given to the contributor as well one punishment system should also be present for non-contributors. Then only the collective action will take care of interest of poor as well oppressed. In India political leaders are making policies by participation of aam janata and also implement this but in a particular scheme a special caste, religion, region, or class is given importance and the others who think marginalised (even they are not), so this discrimination at some extend lead to poor implementation of the scheme or policy, cause incentive to all the channel of implementation is not here.
"rational, self-interested individuals will not act [voluntarily] to achieve their common or group interests" Oslon quoted the very sentence. I will appreciate the same for our democracy. Because when interests are shared, rational actors, that is calculative thoughts about own interest get preferred over collective action, that is, to use the collective efforts for their own interest. Same is the condition of Indian Democracy. Group behaviour can be seen in best form when threr is any benefit or incentives are attached to it, rewards are given to the contributor as well one punishment system should also be present for non-contributors. Then only the collective action will take care of interest of poor as well oppressed. In India political leaders are making policies by participation of aam janata and also implement this but in a particular scheme a special caste, religion, region, or class is given importance and the others who think marginalised (even they are not), so this discrimination at some extend lead to poor implementation of the scheme or policy, cause incentive to all the channel of implementation is not here.
this comment is posted by komal arya.sir as my id was not working so i opted for this route.
komal arya
28014
Despite its obvious defects , democracy remains a viable form of governance . The contention that the illiterate or less educated voters jeopardise the efficacy of democracy is a misplaced notion . Lack of education does not mean that a person is not politically aware and incapable of exercising his franchise in a proper manner . During the freedom struggle , legion of poor illiterate masses whose prowess the British underestimated went on to topple their regime . There are several other examples to vindicate the fact that lack of education is not as big a handicap as perceived to be . Democracy is the only form of governance where everybody irrespective of his status in society gets equal opportunity of exercising his choice . The other good thing is its inclusive nature by which all decisions are taken through participatory process . India is a classic case where despite rampant illiteracy , democracy has moved from strength to strength .
Democracy is what India stands for. John Miller said it's almost impossible to have democracy where people are multi linguistic.Though it could be true but it depends upon the context and the time . Democracy is the way by which even an illiterate person have power to choose their representative,Though we could have a question of it's functionality.I have a way out of it.The so called influential leaders can't fool the people so long .As I've also said earlier people come and unite when they have some common pain.Even I have seen some examples where people boycotted the electoral process because they were cheated by their own influential leader .More interestingly this incidence happened in Bihar where it is believed that vote is casted on caste basis.So to put question on the viability of democracy is not justified.The problem of democracy dysfunctional will sort out in coming days though it could take time.
Democracy is an example of one of the major "Collective Action" visible...where the "Power" rests on the masses and its on them to decide: who do they want to manage the government system...Now moving on to the scenario of democracy prevailing in India, with the multi-party system existing, its very hazy picture in the minds of the citizens because no single party is able to get the clear majority: 2-3 parties combine and form a coallition government(which again depends on the individual motives of the parties being achieved)and the "power" is lost from the hands of the voter.Now, here the role of collective action in true sense comes when people are agreeing upon "one party" which is capable of handling the situations better(which seems an eutopian dream seeing the present)..so, again the citizens are in a dilemma.
The second point is "education as a weapon to extract power from the democratic system", it works on a two way basis...if the citizens are educated, they'll understand the political motive of the parties and requirement of the country better and thus act accordingly...But if the people who are asking for votes are iliterate: what is the use of "voters being educated"... The basic question here is there are a lot to criticize the system, the entire democratic process and its viability as a whole.. but how many of us are ready to mobilise this "ineffective collective action of the biggest democracy of the world..." by putting forward some workable solutions; not necessarily by being a part of the system rather being part of the process and as a beneficiary of the "Change" which will follow...
Post a Comment