19 Jul 2006, 11:18pm
When democracy dies to thunderous applause...
Posted by Script Writer | Category [ General ]Comments (18) | Trackbacks (0)
This one time I am going to speak for something that I truly believe in. I have never let out the person on this blog who people get to see outside the realm of online space. Frankly, I did not, and I still don't, consider it an ethical practice. The issue, however, is above what I consider ethical. It is about rights - the Right to Free Speech.
Unlike countries that pretend to grant rights to their citizens under the garb of democracy, we are a Nation that actually does it. No, not pretend. In fact, we pretend to have no rights at all in this Nation. As a race, we humans have always connected with adversity. And perhaps Indians lead the pack when it comes to making that connection. But the fact remains that in India someone can call the Deputy Prime Minister a murderer (as an aggrieved father did to Mr. LK Advani after the Gujarat riots) and not be sent to jail for it - a contrast to the scene that unfolded during a press conference in the White House post 9/11 where a scribe was arrested under the Patriot Act simply because he asked the President a question he had no answer to.
You take this right away - this right to free speech - and you signal the death of democracy. Drat, I shall not use the term 'democracy' again. I have seen it mutilated and abused so often that it has sadly lost the ability to generate the ethos and the fervour it once could. It has become a buzzword, something you use when you want to impress a gathering of 'socialites'.
All that humanity has so fervently worked for, all that we have done so far has been made possible because of speech (written or oral). You take speech away from man and you might as well put him next to a Chimpanzee on the evolutionary scale.
And that is why it makes the act of banning any medium of free speech ghastly, more so when it has the sanction of a government elected by the people. Like most of us, I am not going to go up in arms against the government for banning blog sites. Honestly, I don't have it in me to do that and I make no bones about it. But I can write out against it, hoping that I reach out to someone who can make a difference. I can't even appeal to the consciousness of the people to galvanise themselves into action because I have done nothing to do that either.
But I can do one thing. I can feverishly pray that people exercise their rights to vote. Only 58% of India's eligible voters cast their ballots. Put loosely, this means that we get people to rule us who are only 58% competent to do their jobs. Then we complain of the sad state of affairs we are in. Let's stop whining.
Current Mood: Gloomy
Current Music: Music-less
Unlike countries that pretend to grant rights to their citizens under the garb of democracy, we are a Nation that actually does it. No, not pretend. In fact, we pretend to have no rights at all in this Nation. As a race, we humans have always connected with adversity. And perhaps Indians lead the pack when it comes to making that connection. But the fact remains that in India someone can call the Deputy Prime Minister a murderer (as an aggrieved father did to Mr. LK Advani after the Gujarat riots) and not be sent to jail for it - a contrast to the scene that unfolded during a press conference in the White House post 9/11 where a scribe was arrested under the Patriot Act simply because he asked the President a question he had no answer to.
You take this right away - this right to free speech - and you signal the death of democracy. Drat, I shall not use the term 'democracy' again. I have seen it mutilated and abused so often that it has sadly lost the ability to generate the ethos and the fervour it once could. It has become a buzzword, something you use when you want to impress a gathering of 'socialites'.
All that humanity has so fervently worked for, all that we have done so far has been made possible because of speech (written or oral). You take speech away from man and you might as well put him next to a Chimpanzee on the evolutionary scale.
And that is why it makes the act of banning any medium of free speech ghastly, more so when it has the sanction of a government elected by the people. Like most of us, I am not going to go up in arms against the government for banning blog sites. Honestly, I don't have it in me to do that and I make no bones about it. But I can write out against it, hoping that I reach out to someone who can make a difference. I can't even appeal to the consciousness of the people to galvanise themselves into action because I have done nothing to do that either.
But I can do one thing. I can feverishly pray that people exercise their rights to vote. Only 58% of India's eligible voters cast their ballots. Put loosely, this means that we get people to rule us who are only 58% competent to do their jobs. Then we complain of the sad state of affairs we are in. Let's stop whining.
Current Mood: Gloomy
Current Music: Music-less
20 Jul 2006, 12:26am
"Only 58% of India's eligible voters cast their ballots. Put loosely, this means that we get people to rule us who are only 58% competent to do their jobs."
Please explain this. I don't understand how one can mean the other.
20 Jul 2006, 12:28am
Ah, and I'm sorry I'm focusing on that and not the rest of your post. That's the thing that jumped out. The rest is... just too idealistic Scripto, even though you're trying to contain it.
20 Jul 2006, 10:30am
May your tribe increase! I differ about two points though -
1.Why should we be grateful to government for freedom of speech, as if they are doing a favor to us!? Should it not be a basic given? Of course there are countries where freedom is more restrained, but comparisons should not be consolation enough. Government is a fucntional entity with definite roles and responsibilities. They better allow freedom of speech and not hold it as some favor.
2.There's this mis-association between 'responsibility' and exercising one's franchise. The important thing is not to vote, but to vote for the right chaps. When we have twenty goons to choose from and I refuse to vote, is that an irresponsible gesture or, on the contrary, a responsible one? This is the reason why many chaps, concerned and wise, don't vote, not because they don't realise their responsibility. Unfortunately, people are made to think that they are being responsible by merely exercising their franchise! They are made to think that voting for an asshole is better than not voting at all!
20 Jul 2006, 11:32am
Aran, yes this is idealistic - an offshoot of my age no doubt. Still not corrupted by the elements, I should say.
And, I can't explain that. You either get it or you don't.
VJ, right to speech is a basic given. I never said it was a favour the government was doing. If it came out that way in my post, then I am clearing the air here!
And, about the voting issue. Different people, different perspectives. I don't agree with yours, and you don't agree with mine. But there is a thought here. If all the people out there who contest elections are goons, why is it that we still have some fabulous work being done in this country?
20 Jul 2006, 4:59pm
Fabulous work - although far too less than what can be possible - is being done because there is something called "opposition", and the drive to preserve the place. There are various reasons else - image building, PR exercise, pride, etc etc - and these are common motives shaped by evolution... that's besides the point anyways. There are, indeed, a few good chaps too in the gang, but their number is too negligible to have any forceful impact. 3 upright men out of 100 goons, after nearly sixty years of independence doesn't sound grand! Worse, the proportion of good chaps to goons has only been on the rise! 100 good chaps out of 100 is ideal, 85 good chaps and 15 goons is tolerable and fine, too. This is possible to achieve too - only when the common man realizes that it's more important to vote 'rightly' than just vote for the heck of it.
Don't you think we have experimented enough with goons?
20 Jul 2006, 5:00pm
Sorry, I should've written - "Worse, the proportion of goons to good chaps has only been on the rise!
20 Jul 2006, 5:17pm
Do not confuse my pushing to exercise the franchise to mean exercising it without thought. Thought has to be given to all action, and this is no exception.
But an important step in voting right is voting in the first place. And shirking responsibility by saying that no one is good enough does not hold water. How many of us even make the attempt to know the people contesting from our constituencies?
It is about numbers, VJ. Of the 100 that contest from each area, one has to be good. All 100 cannot be goons.
20 Jul 2006, 6:28pm
:-) we can go on and on... but then the facts are for everybody to see. The extant political system is too spoilt to attract any good chaps on board. It's not true that people don't know anything about the people contesting from respective constituencies. On the other hand, if they don't know anything and yet vote, it's a silly thing to do. Most people who vote know the story of candidates, but then voting isn't a fair exercise in India. People are exploited, cajoled to vote, and some are rigged. Get the percentage and grab the seat. The few chaps who stand out do so because they want better chaps to contest. I don't see why this appears as a 'shrinking away from responsibility'! A prominent newsmagazine publishes criminal records of all candidates standing in for elections but a few weeks later we come to know that the same chaps have won the elections! Voting and winning votes are both incentive-based, so things don't go as fair as we like to idealise. Reality is too far removed from utopia. Unless we deeply understand what 'responsibility' actually implies, this sad state of affairs would continue! If one is at all 'thinking', he would also question how effective and essential voting itself is.
20 Jul 2006, 6:51pm
@Vj and @ScriptWriter:
Both of you are right. Just that Vj is reflecting "how things are" and ScriptWriter is musing about "how things should be".
20 Jul 2006, 7:30pm
I stand by you, when it come to voting, only when the citizens of the country take the responsibility to vote that change can take place. Yes, Politics are the dirty and worst, and in the name to elect democratic government, people
20 Jul 2006, 7:57pm
VJ, I am truly saddenned how anyone could even wonder whether voting is essential. What do you propose? Dictatorship where people have no rights at all?
And about those who won despite having criminal records. They won because the people who voted cannot read. If people like you and I had voted, and voted for someone with no criminal record, then we would have had someone without a record ruling us.
Perhaps we should add an option 'None of these' on the ballot papers as an exercise to show that people consider none of the contestants able enough. That is a constructive approach, and we as citizens can push for that. But to say that we need to question the need of the voting exercise is really unfortunate.
Twigrl, you may choose to differ. That is your prerogative. But I have facts to support what I said. At no point, other than the emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi, has the official machinery ever impinged upon the rights of the Indian citizen. The Government of India has never resorted to threats. We are a democracy, not a banana republic.
20 Jul 2006, 8:14pm
certainly disagree with you again, may be you need to dig a little deeper.
20 Jul 2006, 11:10pm
Again, you may choose to differ. But since you are the one alleging that the Indian Government does impinge upon people's rights you need to come up with proof as well. Tell me when and where it has happenned. Enlighten me.
21 Jul 2006, 1:47am
Mr.writer go read it again, I said you need to dig deeper, If I was so up to enlightening you then I would have enlightened you before giving you a chance to ask. In my openion being enlightened by others is not the same as enlighting yourself by your efforts.
21 Jul 2006, 11:04am
Twigrl, I did read what you wrote. I read every word of what you write. And I did dig deep, as deep as I possibly could. When I make sweeping statements like that, I back them up with solid research too.
Since my research failed me to yield the kind of information you are saying it should have, it is only fair that I ask of you to help me out here. Please let me know when the Government of India has resorted to something as shameful as impinging on people's rights. As a citizen of this country, it is my right to know that. And if I do not have access to this information, and you do, then what is the harm in providing me with it?
21 Jul 2006, 7:02pm
:-) I didn't mean to say that voting is not essential. I did, however, mean to suggest that a 'thinking' voter will understand the implications of voting, and, as a result, reason when it is essential and when it is not. Voting is not a sensible deed when there are no able candidates to choose from, and I do not find this gesture any 'anti-democratic'. If we are talking of a healthy democracy then we shouid acknowledge that the common man has the right to demand able candidates to contest the elections. It's like taking a firm foot and saying, "No, these candidates are not working for me, so I am not voting. Get me able chaps and then I'll cast my vote. I don't want to choose between more evil and less evil (as Twgirl referred to), I want to choose only from the good. So, dump these and get me the good ones."
Unfortunately, we are conditioned, by education and media, to believe that voting is some sacred deed and one should do it without asking any questions. Blind voting doesn't look like a virtue to me. A 'thinking' voter doesn't take it as a mandatory gesture, but a gesture that should be exercised with caution, and that it can be wholly withheld when necessary. Government has failed in a million ways, for decades together, and, understandably, the 'thinking' voters have been staying away from voting. They are not superheroes to stop others from voting though, which is why there is always this percentage of population that votes. And yet another 'act' of the political drama begins!
Voting is just one of the criteria that defines a democracy, and it is not s deterministic criterion at that. Accountability is utmost important. Where this is not, simple and blind exercise of voting doesn't help matters. And, heck, going by the criteria for 'democracy', India is not an eligible country yet for that. What we have is a skewed version of democracy where just about anybody can vote. For a healthy democracy, the voting population has to be sufficiently aware of the implications. When they want to select Booker prize or Nobel prize winners, or all-time best movies, they don't call you and me to vote. That works fine in opinion polls, not when we are doing something serious. And government is not a funny entity. Plato would feel awful how clever chaps skew the meaning and exploit it with billions of people! This does NOT mean I suggest a dictatorship. I just mean to suggest that there's a need for clearing a lot of ground in order to make democracy work good in India.
We choose bureaucrats through a rigorous selection procedure, we choose management chaps through one of the toughest test, unfortunately when it comes to choosing politicians, we commit blunders! Again and again! We don't ask everybody on the street to sit in the selection panel for selecting civil servants, but as regards selecting politicians, we have a skewed version in place! The modus operandi is flawed. The results are for everyone to see.
I absolutely agree with your idea of having "none of the above" option in the ballot papers. It's a brilliant idea, and yes, if such an option makes is made available then it makes sense that everybody should vote.
21 Jul 2006, 9:23pm
Since there is no option, what stops the so-called thinking voter to cast a blank ballot paper in the meantime? That way, the message gets across. Once we start finding out that more and more people are casting blank votes, someone will do something about it.
And, I disagree. How do you propose you select people to vote? This is like going back to the dark ages when women were not allowed to vote because it was thought they did not have the political thinking for it. Or to the days when blacks were denied voting rights. Or when the British Raj only gave voting rights to certain sections of the aristocracy. Sorry, this argument of filtering a voting panel does not hold water.
22 Jul 2006, 10:59am
:-)
1.There are already many people who - whether out of ignorance or deliberation - drop blank ballot papers. And they are simply dumped as 'invalid'. Nobody cares and nobody gets the message. Reality is far removed from idealism.
2.That it appears a 'moving back to dark ages' is just a referential speculation, just because you have a past to refer to. Times are different, the information is more, the criteria are different. If you dump the idea of God, it doesn't mean that you are going back in evolution - to the age of chimps. When you have the intelligence to assess and realise that things are not working, the act of turning back only implies adapting a new and more sensible method. That it appears as a moving back is just an excuse to support the argument. And it finds favor, luckily, because past was a fact but future is hypothetical (and hence is easier to dismiss).
3.As regards the hyped 'freedom of speech', well, everybody knows what happened to Tehelka and the videotapes. And this is just one example. Just because we are not told about every goddamn thing that the government does, and just because a few of us are lucky enough to indulge in exchange of words and ideas, it doesn't imply that everything out there is fair and grand. Article 19(2) is so full of 'vague' references that they can be used whichever way to frame a chap as guilty. Everything comes with an 'if-and-but' connotation. And freedom of speech doesn't constitute in just allowing the freedom to yell. It's the effect that is the measure. And yelling is no big deal when government refuses to listen and act. Orwell summed it up brilliantly - "All men are equal but some men are more equal than others." And Orwell is not a stupid chap.