Last week Narendra Modi won the elections in Gujarat, a state which witnessed some of the worst riots and pogroms in recent history. The fact that he has been re-elected as Chief minister while half of the country is calling him a mass-murderer does not seem to be going against him. If at all, it has strenghtened his follower's resolve in backing the "Nero of Gujarat".
In another part of Asia, the Thai seem to be bringing back Thaksin Shinawatra's party to power. The former leader who had to do a runner after the military coup is facing charges of corruption and is being investigated. But this is not stopping his party from winning.
Both these cases bring to the fore, the inherent flaw or possiblities that the democractic process entails. Here we have two leaders, both very charismatic and able to lead people and shape public-opinion at will. Both have been charged with crimes against the people who they govern. There seems to be ample proof for both to be prosecuted. Yet, both are coming back to power.
Does it make them innocent ? Just because the majority believes that they are right and good; does it exonerate them of their actions ? Or is Democracy in itself flawed ? Is it the process which is at fault or is it the people ? Or is it a case of election rigging and information assymetry ?
No easy answers here; but this sure calls for a total image make-over for democracy - if people have to believe in it as a process.
I remember having a conversation with a Pakistani Taxi driver in Dubai.
Me: Dont you feel constricted in a monarchy and a police-state here ?
Taxi driver : Mr Khan, I am worried about the money i earn, what i send to my family and the quality of my life. Does it matter if this is a monarchy or Democracy ? It doesnt to me. The monarchs here think of the citizens as their children and take care of them. Corrupt politicians in the Sub-continent only think of themselves and stash away as much money as possible in the four or five years they are in power. Now, you tell me which system is better ???
1 comment:
Ahhh...here's an interesting topic. I live in Hong Kong where, it seems, we are "not ready for democracy". This notion is accepted by the world while there is outrage and cals for democracy in places arguably far less "developed". As the USers might say, what's up with that?
Consider the ideal of freedom (of thought, lifestyle, etc.) with the apparent reality that greatness (in thought, if not lifestyle) comes through wrestling with constraint (as in unofficial literature and art created under repressive regimes). A benevolent despot may indeed create a climate of opportunity--but where are the lines drawn? A democracy may, n fact, become a tyranny of the majority--and what recourse the minority?
Some aspire to the notion that individuals carve their own way with no social responsibility. this seems to ignore that we are social animals in a social milieu--and both responsible for and subject to the collective frame.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment