Saving ourselves from Trump was a cliffhanger, Sakshi, and I am saddened by the fact that both the US and India ended up looking at democracy through British eyes. As such, good political education about the issues is always snowed under by silly political wrangling caused and influenced by that British system.
There are two forms of democracy, and one is the Egyptian pyramid with a single strong man (!) in top. The other is the Mexican pyramid with a platform in top, and not a pointy, lofty position for just one person.
India would do much better if it had a democracy like Germany. In that system, the four sides of the pyramid are climbed by various political perspectives, and at the top platform, the stronger sides need to communicate and work together to lead the nation, politically.
The chance that one of these parties talks like Modi is great. But the chance that the other party embraces science and uses the examples of other nations to avoid falling in the same pitfalls is also great. Together, they lead the nation to smarter outcomes.
A single man and a single party in top is how humans ended up fighting each other. The single leader is from the war model when everything must be tight and precise to win the war. The single party is not the model for cooperation and listening to the smartest options available and then picking one or two approaches.
I blame the British. They conquered the world with their mean version of freedom. Folks got the idea that they were free, but they were only allowed to walk into the political house via one or two doors.
I know India has a mixed system, but it is ultimately a system that resembles the Egyptian pyramid. Therefore, it will always bow to the mistakes of the single leader instead of openly discussing both the correct and mistaken positions of the four political sides at the top level.
In a good democracy, the leader bows to the voters. The leader(s) will bow to the voters sooner in a Mexican-pyramid system than in an Egyptian-pyramid system. The actual power is and must be in the hands of the voters, and the British system holds a lot of power with the parties and the special interest groups instead. It is a mean and demeaning system, particularly because it falsely says it embraces freedom.
Democracy < - - > Winner-Take-All < - - > Dictatorship
Just the right to vote in a voting booth is not the same as living in a democracy. In a democracy, all the voters are represented by others. In winner-take-all, only the winners are represented, while the losers are not represented. In the US Senate, in 2006, just shy of 60 percent of the voters picked the winner. That means that 2 out of 5 people went home empty handed after they voted.
In a democracy, more than 99% of the voters get the person or party they handpicked themselves. Not happening in India, not in the US, not in the UK.
I feel very sorry for the people of India that they do not have a better political system that serves them better. India produces a lot of vaccines and a smart government would have negotiated actual benefits for its own population from this production instead of reaping the financial benefits for the happy few connected to the decision makers. That is the system, speaking loud and clear.
The fact that you cannot punish your politicians (for long) is the political weakness of the British and Indian system. In a real democracy, bad parties end up in that place known as oblivion. Gone forever when they don't deliver.
In Germany, they were smart to limit the number of parties. But they did not limit it to the extent that the voters were made powerless. A large nation like India should (at the national level) incorporate a limit, so there won't be more than 5 to 7 parties. In a real democracy, at minimum 5 parties have tasted real national power over a time span of 30 years. India cannot say that. In my dictionary, India is not a democracy.
Change can always be put in place. The local level is the fastest route to implementing the better voting system. Start voting for candidates that want voting reform. At the local level, proportional voting is best. The larger the level, the more it should limit the number of parties to about 6.
Germany showed that even district voting can be used, as long as the national level is subsequently corrected and based on proportional principles.
Thank you for your article. I am truly sorry that there is nothing I can do or say that will improve the situation today; my words can only help prevent future political incompetence if the people of India decide to become a real democracy.
