---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Subject: True democracy
To: india-unity@yahoogroups.com, indiathinkersnet@yahoogroups.com, KeralaDD@yahoogroups.co.uk, Mahajanapada@yahoogroups.com
There are no true democracies in the world today and probably there
were no true democracies in the past either. Most if not all of
today's democracies are inheritors of monarchies and empires. The
first colonies of America might have been an exception as they were in
a position to start things from the scratch. But soon the British
imposed their rule there too and when America became independent it
took over the powers of the British as it took place in India and in
all colonies that became independent of Colonial rule.
Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as a govt of, by and for the people.
But he did not bother to define the all important term people. As I
have said often, there is no sense in making a statement or getting
into a discussion without defining the terms we use in the
statement/discussion.
Democracies and democratic govts are mere concepts. The reality is the
citizen or voter who is the most sovereign entity. To say that a
conceptual thing like a nation is sovereign is meaningless. It is as
silly as saying that the moon is sovereign. However with millions of
people being sovereign in their own right will lead to total chaos and
anarchy and lawlessness, as it is at present among the nations of the
world. We are social beings and we have to cooperate with each other
if we are to move ahead. It is our great and complex degree of
cooperation that distinguishes us from animals.
If I am to cooperate with another one I have to delegate some of my
sovereign rights to the other man and he has to do the same with me.
In the process we are not giving up our sovereign rights but only
delegating my rights to the cooperative entity for the better
prospects of both. Of course we have to cooperate not only with just
another individual but on a global basis and in the process the
individual's absolute and sovereign rights are delegated to higher and
higher steps in the ladder of integration and governance. Thus in a
theoretical scenario of forming a new democracy, we delegate as
minimum as possible of our individual sovereign power to the next
higher level the family and thence to the Panchayat or the village
council and then to the district level and then to the state level and
thence to the country level and thence to regional cooperative
entities like the ASEAN or the European Union and then to the UN.
This is the way a democracy should be formed - from the bottom up.
Instead most if not all of today's democracies are formed from the top
down. Thus the Indian republic inherited the structure the British had
set up, not for governance or cooperation but for commercial
exploitation. With the inheritance of this commercially oriented
political structure, all power is concentrated at the center and it
hands down downstream only as little as it deigns to give up. In a
true democracy sovereign and absolute power should flow upward from
the individual voter to the the various entities that constitute our
political systems, systems such as Panchayats, districts, states etc.
This would involve the right of the voter to accede, merge or secede
subject to a majority mandate. However because of the nonidealistic
conditions in which today's democracies came into existence, the
sovereign and absolute power of the voter to secede is frowned upon
and meets with all kinds of civil and criminal reprisals. Some of the
democracies in the world do not now frown upon demands for secession
and separation. In contrast other nations think of secession and
separation as the ultimate crime in contradiction of the very grain
and spirit of what a democracy is all about and how it is to be
formed. State propaganda and sloganeering cement this undemocratic
attitude against demands of secession or separation.
Some years back the Kashmir assembly voted for autonomy. In response a
BJP leader said that if Kashmir opts out every other state will opt
out too. I have heard many respond in this manner to demands for
autonomy. This attitude is meaningless extrapolation which in turn is
conditioned by repetitious state propaganda. But my question to this
irrational attitude is that if every state is just waiting to break
away as soon as Kashmir breaks away, then what is the relevancy of the
union of states that is India. Sikkim opted to join the union long
after India became a republic. Now we say it cannot opt out. Is the
union a rat trap which one can get into but not out of? We subscribe
to a union or cooperation for better prospects at the various levels
of Political and economic cooperation. The same goes for a union of
states. The state and a union of states exists only at the will of the
voter and for his better prospects and not the other way round. It is
the voter that is supreme and not the entities like states and
countries which are willed into existence by the sovereign voter for
his welfare and progress
--
Xavier William |
From: Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Subject: True democracy
To: india-unity@yahoogroups.com, indiathinkersnet@yahoogroups.com, KeralaDD@yahoogroups.co.uk, Mahajanapada@yahoogroups.com
There are no true democracies in the world today and probably there
were no true democracies in the past either. Most if not all of
today's democracies are inheritors of monarchies and empires. The
first colonies of America might have been an exception as they were in
a position to start things from the scratch. But soon the British
imposed their rule there too and when America became independent it
took over the powers of the British as it took place in India and in
all colonies that became independent of Colonial rule.
Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as a govt of, by and for the people.
But he did not bother to define the all important term people. As I
have said often, there is no sense in making a statement or getting
into a discussion without defining the terms we use in the
statement/discussion.
Democracies and democratic govts are mere concepts. The reality is the
citizen or voter who is the most sovereign entity. To say that a
conceptual thing like a nation is sovereign is meaningless. It is as
silly as saying that the moon is sovereign. However with millions of
people being sovereign in their own right will lead to total chaos and
anarchy and lawlessness, as it is at present among the nations of the
world. We are social beings and we have to cooperate with each other
if we are to move ahead. It is our great and complex degree of
cooperation that distinguishes us from animals.
If I am to cooperate with another one I have to delegate some of my
sovereign rights to the other man and he has to do the same with me.
In the process we are not giving up our sovereign rights but only
delegating my rights to the cooperative entity for the better
prospects of both. Of course we have to cooperate not only with just
another individual but on a global basis and in the process the
individual's absolute and sovereign rights are delegated to higher and
higher steps in the ladder of integration and governance. Thus in a
theoretical scenario of forming a new democracy, we delegate as
minimum as possible of our individual sovereign power to the next
higher level the family and thence to the Panchayat or the village
council and then to the district level and then to the state level and
thence to the country level and thence to regional cooperative
entities like the ASEAN or the European Union and then to the UN.
This is the way a democracy should be formed - from the bottom up.
Instead most if not all of today's democracies are formed from the top
down. Thus the Indian republic inherited the structure the British had
set up, not for governance or cooperation but for commercial
exploitation. With the inheritance of this commercially oriented
political structure, all power is concentrated at the center and it
hands down downstream only as little as it deigns to give up. In a
true democracy sovereign and absolute power should flow upward from
the individual voter to the the various entities that constitute our
political systems, systems such as Panchayats, districts, states etc.
This would involve the right of the voter to accede, merge or secede
subject to a majority mandate. However because of the nonidealistic
conditions in which today's democracies came into existence, the
sovereign and absolute power of the voter to secede is frowned upon
and meets with all kinds of civil and criminal reprisals. Some of the
democracies in the world do not now frown upon demands for secession
and separation. In contrast other nations think of secession and
separation as the ultimate crime in contradiction of the very grain
and spirit of what a democracy is all about and how it is to be
formed. State propaganda and sloganeering cement this undemocratic
attitude against demands of secession or separation.
Some years back the Kashmir assembly voted for autonomy. In response a
BJP leader said that if Kashmir opts out every other state will opt
out too. I have heard many respond in this manner to demands for
autonomy. This attitude is meaningless extrapolation which in turn is
conditioned by repetitious state propaganda. But my question to this
irrational attitude is that if every state is just waiting to break
away as soon as Kashmir breaks away, then what is the relevancy of the
union of states that is India. Sikkim opted to join the union long
after India became a republic. Now we say it cannot opt out. Is the
union a rat trap which one can get into but not out of? We subscribe
to a union or cooperation for better prospects at the various levels
of Political and economic cooperation. The same goes for a union of
states. The state and a union of states exists only at the will of the
voter and for his better prospects and not the other way round. It is
the voter that is supreme and not the entities like states and
countries which are willed into existence by the sovereign voter for
his welfare and progress
--
Xavier William |
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment