Democracy ..... really?

Thank God there's no democracy in running homes, schools, offices, courts, or religious cults, nor is there total freedom of speech there.

But in running the country, India has more democracy than it can handle. The nation is infested with many parties and independents staking a claim to rule the people. Unfortunately, they are willing to sacrifice the country's well-being for their own self-interest. 

That democracy is good and all dictators are evil has become the default starting point of all popular discussions. Frankly, it is the Goebbels’ law that makes us feel that way. In reality, it’s the other way around. The law states that a big lie, if presented as an idea and if repeated long enough, most people will eventually believe it.

Evil dictators are far and few but are regularly quoted, making them the favorite strawman’s argument. And let us not forget that Hitler, who was evil and cruel, was a product of democracy.

Ironically, Joseph Goebbels, was a Nazi propagandist!

Sure, in theory, democracy can be the least evil system. But a visionary dictator is far better than the best democracy, proven so empirically.

Why can’t the starting point be: Given that the elite intellectuals are a minuscule minority, whenever the majority wins, mediocrity also wins?

Democracy is not recommended in any place where the population is poorly engaged in regular sociopolitical conversations, as democracy requires real awareness and longterm thinking among the people. That doesn't exist even in developed countries. There is low awareness of what is good in the long term, and thus selection of the leader, too, is poor.

Voting rights are akin to giving lollipop-sucking kids the power to choose their own babysitter. Such caretakers dole out populist candies each time the kids demand attention so that they are left alone. Then, they begin to take care of themselves and not the children. 

Over time, democracy becomes an excuse for rulers and the ruled to escape accountability. 

Democracy with a strong, vigilant opposition leads to internal checks & balances, is indeed a brilliant hypothesis. In a system where, in the name of vigilant opposition, it is observed that the obstructionists with vested interests gain. To overcome that, one must do hyper-marketing to stay in power. That demands mega funding activity repeatedly. The ruling parties have no choice but to take bribes (cash or kind) from some and return favors to few, i.e., seek "donations" and produce policies to benefit the supporters, respectively. 

The other issue is that a quid pro quo model between the business and the ruling class develops over time. Often, that leads to companies funding all key political parties across the spectrum, and so an informal and indirect soft cartel between the significant ruling parties takes shape. They sure do compete but tacitly cooperate in selective areas, much to their personal gains and the detriment of the public.

One could not say a word against the monarchy. Now that we have elected leaders, we sure can criticize them; should we? Venting against the ruling dispensation has become a national pastime, with each group looking at them through their own lens. It is so absurd that even with limited knowledge, the groups are distracted and fighting each other like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant.  

The more the press, the mainstream or social media warriors scream negatively against their own elected government without offering viable, workable solutions, the more marketing expenditures the ruling class needs to create a self-serving counter narrative and assert its relevance.  

We try to apply our hearts anchored in idealism and minds aligned in morality to make a case for democracy from the comforts of our living rooms, even when that system fails to deliver its fundamental objective, namely, a welfare state.  

At best, democracy may be implemented only once a nation's GDP per capita crosses USD 8,000. No country in the world has had a smooth transition of power below that threshold number! Maslow's theory of needs applies here, too.

Those who give the example of America, well, democracy there evolved into a mature democracy only after 150 years, which is far from perfect. In fact, it is stretched at the seems. And yet, the Western world kept pushing their erstwhile colonies to go for democracy, using their influence and financial power from the loot to extend coloniality.

Sadly, India offered political freedom immediately after independence in the form of an adult franchise even when most of the population did not have financial freedom. Not known to most, all Indian women voted in all elections before all American women did! India continued to remain dependent on the Western world. The first Indian PM, Nehru’s first speech, delivered in the language of India’s erstwhile oppressor, even when 96% of the people did not speak English then, is symbolic of just that.

The consequence is that even after 75 years, India, like all countries that have had premature delivery of democracy, remains poor & backward on many parameters. The West thrives, not necessarily because of democracy, but by exploiting the global trade and commerce mechanisms.

Is there still hope? 

 Hopefully, India will soon have a single-party democracy. One can hope that, in the next general election, the BJP, a nationalist party, emerges as the single largest party with a pan-India presence and disproportionately large control of both houses of the parliament. That indeed would be a blessing.

India has great potential and a possible domestic market waiting to be unleashed. All that will likely produce close to double-digit growth for years, as it did in Singapore, Malaysia, or Indonesia when single parties ruled for almost two to three decades at a stretch. China, sans democracy, has, for the most part, successfully eliminated abject poverty at a breakneck speed and, for all practical purposes, become a developed nation. Some of the Middle Eastern kingdoms are worthy of envy, where you can’t bad mouth the royalty, but nobody is hand-to-mouth.

 A strong multiparty democracy produces the opposite of the intent & 'democratic development' remains India's proprietary oxymoron. 

 Some would argue that a single-party democracy such as that of a city-state like Singapore cannot be compared with India, and instead, a strong democracy would ensure checks and balances.

The past has taught us enough that what we have doesn't work.

Now it's time to implement our learning & move away from the status quo.

On the contrary, City states can do with a bit of inefficient distribution, be it - messaging out policies or delivering goods & services.

Think, how much harm can it do?

 The government of Singapore or Dubai has a ‘line of sight’ across the city, and corrective measures can be taken quickly. One could physically drive across the city if it came down to that!

 Even after decades, India is really lagging in several aspects and has a lot to do in terms of catching up—so it needs bullet-train speed in implementing projects and not obstructionist democracy.

 For a vast subcontinent like India, there is all the more reason to have fewer hurdles or distractions from all corners in the form of mini mutinies posed by selfish regional parties. The perpetual dispute between the states and the center must ebb.

We must end politics driven by opportunism and coalitions of convenience and free the administration from the clutches of parties that lack any ideology except a self-serving one.

 We need compelling central leadership, effective control, and distribution under the oversight of empowered and enrolled CMs, with minimal implementation lags.

 The least we can do is weaken democracy, if we are not comfortable in eliminating it.

The press may still be free but should remain subservient to the cause of India’s integrity. The independence of the Election Commission and Supreme Court is possible. Under our current demo-crazy, they are not. The integrity of India should be their underlying fundamental responsibility of all the entities.

The single party must still seek the people's confidence once every five years. Failing that, any rejuvenated smaller party can rise to the occasion and pose as a challenger to the incumbent.

This alone can resurrect the India of our dreams.