(Prelude: I have shared this link with selected folks, whom I trust for their out of box thinking, those who have an inbuilt ability to challenge the prevalent concepts and someone, who can be creative enough to offer criticism, not alone to this topic but also on how best to correct course with the current democratic selection.
Our experimentation with democracy has been almost for several centuries, while few countries are in mature phase, others are late adopters and few are not yet initiated. However, when we see those mature democracies, we certainly think, do we want to implement this model? Certainly, you will ask, what is the alternative? What options do fit optimally if not best? I have no answer. This is a foundational attempt in initiating that conversation with selected folks).
Well, you may wonder, haven’t read this term. Certainly, you are right. Let me explain what that means –
When ‘Equations’ and ‘Demagogy’ dominate our polity, all we get is a plethora of residual issues and remnant of social malice. That is Equatogogy. I just coined this term. I am sure it will add to the parlance of literature.
It is an irony –
- when we choose a leaders for enterprise management, we choose the best. The selection process goes through thorough scrutiny.
- When we have a medical problem, we seek an advise from the best doctor. One with significant experience, skills and continuously updated knowledge within their field.
- When we send soldiers to the border, we send the strongest and the best of the lot.
When it comes to democracy, the electorate has little choice. More so, electoral politics has become a number’s game. Those who can cobble up more than 50%, are the chosen decision makers. It does not matter if those numbers are put up with rudimentary math or brute influence or dithering ambivalence and a snapshot distrust on the political dispensation existing at that time. When we have such equations that dominate our polity, we have outcome such as long lingering and simmering dissatisfaction of huge segments of people. That frustration ultimately erupts into phenomenon such as Brexit, recent US election fiasco, the Russian political crisis etc.
Leaders (for any specific country) are chosen for a limited period, from four to six years depending upon the country. Ownership ends with the tenure. What follows is a short sighted approach towards long term problems. However, stakeholders are keen to know the results and having a short term 3 – 5 years approach for results at the leadership level is by far the most pragmatic one amongst the multitudes of options.
Some may suggest, at the federal level, we have five year schemes and roadmap. Frankly, those plans too are vitiated to amalgamate the short term objectives. In fact, it’s a complex process driving the short term, midterm and long term objectives, especially in this era of superfast changes. It is fair for enterprise to have a short term and mid-long term segmented view of it’s vision and mission, however, the life of a country far out numbers the life of an enterprise. Integrated five year plans that are not regularly updated, and (more so) those which do not capture the needs of the minority segment (those less than 49% by far a huge segment, enough to create a revolution, if pent up frustrations are significant), poses a real threat and vulnerability to the long term progress, if not integrity of the country.
On top of that we have leaders who are chosen despite the handicaps who have major or only say on deciding and executing policy. The result is an outcome which deprives a non-majority segment with resultant simmering dissatisfaction.
Are we truly getting the results from our current democratic selection?
As mentioned earlier, I initiated this dialogue, and I am still in conversation with select few whose thoughts are important to this process of expanding my own understanding of this complex maze. Please comment.
Ultimately, it is the enlightenment of the common man that would raise the nation, not the influence of money over the media. Please visit my brief blog on This topic. http://wp.me/p7XEWW-uV
Human Rights are the ultimate assets that needs to be safeguarded. That does not mean democracy is the panacea. Also, democracy is not the same for every regional political grouping, not the same for every ethnoreligious group. Implementing a uniform model of governance is unlikely to give us the desired results. Please visit my blog Your Democracy, My Democracy! http://wp.me/p7XEWW-7g.