Democracy, as defined, is ‘a system of governance in which
power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely
elected representatives’.
Let us dissect this definition for the purposes of
understanding it better. What does democracy really mean?
At the outset, it is the power that the people possess to
govern the state. However, since such a large number of people cannot possibly
decide upon all matters of state regulation simultaneously, their powers are
delegated to a few individuals, group-by-group. Constituencies are formed from
which one candidate is elected by the people to then represent them in the
legislative assemblies.
The main point that I am going to jump into right away is
quite simple- the power belongs to the people. Representatives of all
constituencies are just that- representatives.
It is their responsibility to fulfil the wishes and solve the problems that the
people of their constituency face. The people, who hold the real power,
delegate that power to someone they believe is capable of voicing their
concerns on a provincial or national level.
It is a simple question of logic- when does one delegate a
task to another? It may be to promote efficiency, it may be because the power
exists but the person(s) who hold it are unfit to exercise it. The real
question then emerges- when should one not
delegate their powers? Does it not seem counter-intuitive to delegate your
power and authority to somebody who is doing poorly at handling his/her
responsibilities? Why should you continue to give your authority to somebody
else to exercise on your behalf if
they are doing next to nothing on your
behalf?
Democracy is not explained as ‘relinquishing your power and
authority to somebody who will arbitrarily decide how to proceed in matters of
state governance’. It is explained as ‘delegating
your power and authority (which vests in the people, and the people only) to freely elected representatives to act on your behest’.
It is a matter of reflection- how much are we actually being represented? How well is this current
system of delegating powers going? It does not seem to be going very well, if I
may be allowed to comment.
The problem I see is that hardly anybody realises that they
possess the power, and that the ‘leaders’ that they are so afraid of, are subject to them, not the other way
around.
Why is it that the people of a nation are held to be
unimportant in decisions of war and peace? Why is it that the ‘foreign policy’
of a nation (whatever that is supposed to mean) takes precedence over the wishes of the
people? What is observable is that a nation’s elected representatives would
rather uphold the ‘foreign policy’ of precedent governments rather than to hear
the wishes of the people. I will go slightly off topic but will still remain
relevant when I ask: how is a nation’s foreign policy any different from
ordinary social customs that have been passed down generations? The day we say
‘this is how it is, period’ is the day we effectively halt further progress.
Why is it that the allocation of financial
or material resources is decided arbitrarily without consulting the people? For
instance, why is the military budget being increased while the budget for the
education sector is being cut down? Why are there no long-term policies being
implemented for the growth of the economy, education, energy and healthcare
sectors?
One can safely assume that most people
living in democratic nations are rather unhappy with the state of affairs. The
level of unhappiness is perhaps more in developed countries because they understand their rights and see them
being infringed. In developing nations such as ours, people are not even aware
of the rights they possess.
The question that remains now, my friends,
is whether you will continue to live with this continuous disregard of your
position of power, or will you check how the power given by you is being used? It is rather silly to
give your power to somebody willingly just to have them use it against your interests.
Democracy has become the benchmark for all
nations of the world to live up to. Yet nobody asks ‘why is democracy the best
way?’ There are compelling arguments against dictatorships because then the people
have absolutely no right to governance. I concur. However, until the world does
not realise that Plato’s idea of a democratic aristocracy is perhaps the ideal
way to go, it can suffice to ask ‘how democratic is democracy, really?’
If democracy is portrayed as the saviour of
all nations and people in the world, how is it that the people consider
themselves powerless? Does the very definition of democracy not say ‘a system of
governance in which power is vested in
the people’? Where is this power exercised? If democracy is my ability to
cast a vote every few years, then I would willingly shun democracy as a
sub-standard, superficial and rather manipulative empty title. Saying that I
have any practical rights by virtue of democracy is to say I can open and close the
window shutter on an airplane. It is such a meaningless act when looked at in
conjunction with the entire working of the airplane.
This is not meant to be a ‘Democracy vs.
Autocracy’ argument. It is an analysis of how democratic democracy really is,
if at all! The meaning of this is simple- if we are being sold the concept of
democracy, are we in fact buying damaged goods?
