Sunday, November 16, 2003 |
Reforms, not replacement Democracy is Demonocracy Much before Fareed Zakaria, Kishore Madhubani — a Singaporean diplomatist — had declared in 1994: "To have good government, you often need less, not more, democracy." Democracy and good governance are distinct, but inter-related and largely inter-dependent concepts. Popular consent does ensure legislation’s effective implementation. Moreover, what’s good for a miniscule city-state like Singapore isn’t necessarily efficacious for a vast multicultural entity like India. Demonising democracy isn’t a new phenomenon. Plato remarks: "Democracy passes into despotism." Here, G.B. Shaw is ambivalent: "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." British cleric Dean Inge is assertive: "Democracy is only an experiment in government, and it has the obvious disadvantage of merely counting votes instead of weighing them." American sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein is scathing: "Democracy can’t work. Mathematicians, peasants, and animals, that’s all there is — so democracy, a theory based on assumption that mathematicians and peasants are equal, can never work. Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group." Karir is in excellent company indeed. The author has gleaned enough material from diverse sources to buttress his argument for replacement of democracy with what he calls Selectocracy, perhaps a variant of meritocracy. Our democratic institutions are not perfect. Booth capturing, rigging, defections etc reveal a systemic malaise, but who is to blame? Politicians’ venality is a truism. They thwarted attempts to bar the entry of criminals into politics. Mercifully, our Supreme Court and Election Commission have made it mandatory for candidates to declare their assets and antecedents while filing nominations. Similar corrective measures can eradicate other evils in our polity. |