Democracy and theocracy cannot be compatible. While democracy relies upon equality before law and equal say in political decisions, theocracy doesn't. As we know a theocracy is a state that is governed by a government that derives its authority directly from a religion, usually invoking the authority of a religious deity and basing their laws on religious texts. And no religion accepts a non-believer or a person with a different faith as an equal to be given the same rights as its followers. And then again, almost all religions discriminate against women and also people with differing sexual orientation, that is, LGBTQ. And thus a democracy by definition has to be secular. Needless to say that this is a proposition that will be enthusiastically accepted by people of religious groups that form minorities but is likely to be resisted / resented by the religious denomination to which the majority belongs.
But then, since democracies decide things like elections or referendums by numbers, the majority gains an upper hand in these decisions. And this is the fundamental irony of democracy which may enable a politician, who is so inclined, to use democracy to finish off democracy!
Naturally, the question arises as to how to prevent this from happening. And one answer that immediately suggests itself is that instead of relying on a first past the post system, a democracy must necessarily have a system of proportional representation where each party gets seats in a legislative body in the same proportion as its percentage share in total votes cast and counted. This also implies that elections have to be fought by parties and not individuals as individuals can shift their loyalty if they so choose.
In this context, I would like to draw your attention to an earlier post by me where I have advocated a reform of the current electoral process. You will find it here - https://anil-upadhyaya.blogspot.com/2014/04/people-or-chunks-of-map.html. Please read this post before moving on to the next para.
Once it is accepted that elections are to be fought by parties and not individuals, and then individuals are to be appointed by parties, a few more much debated issues get resolved.
The foremost is the ability of the parties to keep criminal and ill-qualified people at bay as in this system it is parties and not people that win elections. Because of this, professionals qualified to do justice to the tasks that will be handled by them in the legislative bodies can be identified and appointed by the parties. It may be noted that all this is not meant to preclude people with lower or little qualifications from politics itself. They are welcome to form and run political parties if they so wish, but legislative and ministerial positions must be occupied by people who can do justice to them. These people need not have affiliations with political parties but must possess the requisite qualifications that may be laid down by law. This will take care of the complaint that while we prescribe requisite qualifications for even such inconsequential posts as peons, those at the very helm are not required to have any.
In fact in this system one may make it mandatory for people desirous of working in legislatures, to acquire prescribed qualifications carefully designed for such tasks. New courses can be introduced in universities for this purpose.
This reform alone is not capable of solving the fundamental problem of political funding which is said to be the mother of all corruption. This problem can ba partly alleviated by making rallies illegal. These are a huge sink of funds for political parties. Simultaneously we should create a broadcasting corporation that gives equal / equitable access to all parties to reach out to the masses. Of course, this will be only a small beginning and this topic of political funding deserves separate and serious attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment