Is it enough to be a democracy?

Recently, during the visit of Indian Prime Minister Mr. Modi, India and the USA patted each other's backs for being the largest and the oldest democracies. This was such a pathetic display of self-praise without recognizing the respective problems these democracies are facing. Just because regular elections are held and people vote doesn't make any country a true democracy. If we consider the criteria of regular elections and voting, then many countries could qualify or claim themselves as democracies, but we all know that this is not true. Yes, elections and voting are important aspects of any democracy but they are not the only aspects of it. Freedom of expression, political prosecution of opponents, uniformity of voting rights, subjugation of minorities by the majority, and transparency of the electoral process are some of the other factors that can tell whether it is a functioning democracy or just a paper democracy.

When politicians, especially elected ones, behave in an autocratic manner like kings and queens, is it a real democracy? When the economic fortune of elected politicians multiplies by orders of magnitude after their elections and no one, either the government or the people, questions this, is it a real democracy? When people vote for a bottle of liquor and some money, is it a real democracy? When the voting rights of some people are suppressed because of their social or economic status, is it a real democracy? When voters are continuously misinformed and fed with propaganda and religious fanatism, is it a real democracy? The questions are many, and the point is when some sections are systematically suppressed can we call that system a true democracy?

Agreed, with all its flaws and problems, democracy is still the best system we have. It is messy and not perfect, but this is the reason it is not a big deal to be a paper democracy, where the processes are present but the effect is autocracy. Implementing some democratic process is the minimum any country can do, and the US and India do a great job at it. Also, there are many countries that do not even have these processes, but they also don't claim to be the largest or the oldest democracies. This is why it becomes more important for any country that wants to flaunt its democratic credentials to make sure that its process is not ridden with loopholes and problems making it inefficient and undemocratic. This chest thumping can be a good public relations event or may mesmerize respective political bases, but beyond that, it does not have any meaning. FIX the broken system. It looks pathetic when leaders of two important democratic countries praise each other while their countries are ridden with problems that need their immediate attention. Optics are great for PR, but go and fix the real problems. It is not enough to be a paper democracy, make sure that every eligible person gets the right to vote and no voices are suppressed either directly or indirectly, and then, let's have a party.   

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Elections and democracy

Are elections enough to demonstrate that the country is a liberal democratic country? 

Many may answer in the affirmative and they won't be entirely wrong. But are only elections enough? Not really. There are many countries where elections are held, and governments claim to represent their people, but they can't be called democracies, for example, Russia and China. India claims to be the largest democracy. If we go just by claims, China should be considered the largest democracy, India may overtake them soon, but currently, China is the most populist country and claims to be democratic. However, many don't accept China to be a Western-style liberal democratic country, and hence India is considered the largest democracy in the world. I have participated as a voter and witnessed Indian elections since my childhood until I left for the US. It is true that elections are held regularly in India at various levels, starting from the local city or village level elections to national elections. Voter bribing, voter intimidation, or voter fraud allegations are leveled after every election. At some point booth capturing and violence during campaigning and voting used to be common. Even today after shifting to so-called more secure voting machines, voting fraud is regularly alleged, and some constituencies need to go for repoll due to voting-related issues. Even after all this, the election is not an issue, what happens during and in between elections is a better indicator of the health of any democracy. Whether personal rights are protected and respected across society, how vocal is the opposition and how much coverage it gets in the media, and whether there is any opposition intimidation (like in China and Russia) are some of the parameters that can be used to check the health of democracy at any given time. India does not perform well on many of these parameters consistently. These things happened in the 70s during the regime of Indira Gandhi, there was an official emergency declared curbing many personal rights and opposition intimidation. Not surprisingly, these things still happen after more than four decades. When the voters don't question the party they vote for, they defend each and every action of their party, and then there is no incentive to do the right things. When there is no accountability and repercussions, why any government or party will change? In a democracy, the majority gets the right to govern and implement its election manifesto, however, it does not get any rights to suppress or intimidate the minority. When personal rights are subjective and depend on who you support and who is in power, and the judiciary fails to step in and check this abrogation of personal rights, then society lives in fear and intimidation. The illusion of democracy is not a democracy. 

Therefore, conducting elections is not enough for democracy, many times, what happens in between the elections is more important than the elections. 

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

Déjà vu - the politics of hatred

The murder of an Indian immigrant in Kansas City was a very disturbing incident. This unfortunate incident got a lot of media coverage in India, obviously, this was due to a strong Indian connection to this event. Many relatives from India of people living in the USA got concerned because of this incident and I am sure it created a situation of panic in some people's families back in India. It is very sad to see anyone killed like this. Many feel that this murder was the result of an atmosphere of hatred or resentment against immigrants. There is a strong perception that the current administration is anti-immigrant, which I don't think is true. This anti-immigrant perception is created based on some strong statements made by Mr. Trump during his presidential election campaign. For me personally, these things are like a replay of a similar migrant resentment phase that I witnessed in the state of Maharashtra in India. I even wrote a post about the politics of pitching one section of society against another and expressed concerns about it before the presidential election. This political gamble worked in Maharashtra and there was no reason why it wouldn't work the same way in the USA. The statements made during the election or the rhetoric used during campaign speeches help leaders and their parties to win elections. They substantiate and solidify their support by creating a very polarized political environment. But, after winning that election some leaders and parties find it difficult to control that anger and contain the hatred of the supporters who voted for them just due to those feelings. After the election, somehow these people who voted just for that particular rhetoric of hatred feel vindicated and get the notion that their feelings are now legitimized and they have the right to execute their agenda.

These types of incidents are disturbing, but they don't define the character of this great nation. The USA is a very immigrant-friendly country. Immigrants feel safe and welcomed here and most of them try to contribute positively to the society and community where they live. The person who risked his life to save two immigrants from this murder was also an American, and I have no doubt that many in this country will try their best to protect their fellow residents. Whether to attribute this incident to a change of regime or not is can be debated Even in India, few people were killed for being a Muslim (Pune techie murder) or for allegedly eating beef (Akhlak murder). When my mom came to know about this incident, she freaked out and asked me why I wanted to stay in the USA? My simple answer was, I love this country, my kids are citizens of this country, and I don't think there is any better place than this country for people like me. Due to my political and social views, I can be a target in any country that doesn't encourage freedom of expression. I don't subscribe to ANY ideology, I am not a member of ANY political party and I don't follow ANY particular religion, and this makes me vulnerable to attack from anyone who doesn't like my views or feels offended by them. In this country at least I have the freedom to express my views without being threatened just for expressing my opinion. The recent case of Gurmehar Kaur might explain what I mean.

As far as feelings of hatred and resentment are concerned, I understand their origin and reasons behind them, and they are common no matter where you live in the world. Resentment will get diluted once the economy gets going, but the politics of hatred is what worries me. If some group gets targeted just because of who they are, then they don't stand any chance to defend themselves. No one should be forced to change their identity just to survive. If people have to change their name, religion, or skin color just to survive then I don't think that country is a free country anymore. I hope this murder was an isolated incident and that the people of the US still believe in their inclusive and tolerant tradition of welcoming immigrants. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Indian American's political dichotomy

During recent Presidential elections in the USA and the last general elections in India, there were a lot of political discussions and debates on social media. Especially due to the heavy use of social media in both elections, these debates didn't have regional and geographical restrictions, one could discuss with anyone available on social media. I guess this is the new trend that started from this election and will continue in the future. I also participated in a few of them. I noticed one critical thing during all those interactions with my Indian American friends (who are either residents or citizens of the USA), many Indians living in the US have very contradictory political views and they don't even realize this dichotomy in their political thinking. In India, there is growing support for the right-wing national party BJP. I am calling the BJP a right-wing due to their social policies, as far as economic policies are concerned, all parties in India are socialist, and surprisingly, this is not one of the major concerns of Indian voters. Based on the history of India and the rest of the world Indian voters should know that for such a large population socialism never works, you need some hybrid system with as little as possible governmental interference in the market.

Many Indian immigrants in the USA support BJP wholeheartedly back in India, they passionately debate to support the current Prime minister Mr. Modi, and his political party BJP. But, in the USA when Mr. Trump used similar rhetoric during his election campaign, most Indian Americans didn't like that. Many with whom I talked were worried about his stance against immigrants (even though he didn't target Indians specifically) and Republican's pro-Christian views. As a minority, most of them are Democrat supporters, and many of these people are concerned about their religious freedom under Republican rule. They want as much freedom and support government can provide for their activities. They want to celebrate their festival in the Indian way, some even boast that now they can immerse Ganesh idols in American lakes and rivers, just like they do in India. They felt this all might be threatened if some conservative party and some unconventional leader like Trump came into power. They loved the same combination in India but are very apprehensive about similar prospects in the US.

This contrast surprised me a bit. I asked many of them what is the difference between the campaign style of Trump and Modi? They both used the same rhetoric, they both targeted a certain group of minorities and tried to make use of feelings of resentment among certain sections of society against each other. So, why Modi was fine, and Trump not? Is it because in India they all represent a majority group, and that is why they want someone who asserts majoritarianism, and as they are a minority group in the US they want the party who is perceived as a pro-minority? When I pointed out this contrast (or hypocrisy), only some of them agreed that indeed there is a contrast and very few of them offered any explanation for it. One of the explanations offered was that this is a survival tactic to survive in a nation where they are not in the majority. I really appreciate this honest confession, it is not easy to accept such a contradiction in your own behavior. I requested some of them to think about the behavior of minorities in India as far as political affiliations are concerned and compare that with their own behavior here and maybe they can find some similarities.

One can choose whatever political party or leader they want to support. But, when there is a sharp contrast between people's political choices based on their demographic status, it is a very interesting phenomenon for an observer like me. I hope Indian Americans realize this dichotomy present in their political views and give some thought to finding some reasons why it exists. This might help to bring some political harmony between minority and majority groups back in India as well as reduce their own anxiety and fears due to their minority status in the US.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

I am a minority, so I understand their insecurity

Some time back, I wrote a post about why the rights of minorities matter in any civilized and progressive society. The reason why I am so aware and sensitive towards the rights of minorities is because I find myself representing a minority opinion wherever I go. I am not affiliated with any particular religion, group, philosophy, or political party, I prefer to be an independent voice. I see that people are very polarized about their views; people are either pro-gay rights, anti-war, pro-poor, pro-choice, or anti-gay rights, pro-war, anti-abortion (pro-life); people love to compartmentalize everyone, and there are stereotypical definitions of conservative and liberal. People conveniently divide themselves based on whatever argument suits them, you are either with them or against them there is no possibility of a middle ground. You are either liberal or conservative, either communal or secular, it is about which side you want to choose and not about which ideas or principles you support. People treat others who don't support their own views or ideas like enemies, they often tend to fight based on party lines not based on principles. The word "bipartisan" only exists on paper.

I personally find some good ideas with every political party or ideology, but often, they are not willing to work together to implement these ideas for the betterment of society. This makes me a unique minority, when I am arguing or discussing with liberals, they think I am a conservative person, and if I am discussing something with conservatives, they think I am a liberal. Because of this, I call myself a unique minority and very well understand why it matters to protect their voice. No matter whether we agree with their opinions or not, no matter if we are comfortable with what someone saying or not, any civilized society needs to protect the voice of dissent. They need to create and maintain an atmosphere where everyone is comfortable in sharing their views and concerns. One should not confuse this with minority appeasement, that is an altogether separate issue. The minority doesn't need any extra favors they should be given equal rights and space, that's all, no more no less.

For any majority it is easy to crush any voice of dissent, it is easy for them to intimidate the minority just based on their strength in numbers. This is why it becomes the responsibility of the majority to create a conducive and healthy atmosphere where everyone from the minority feels comfortable as only the majority has the power to do this. It is quite natural for minorities to feel insecure if the majority or even part of the majority shows any hostile attitude towards them. Fortunately, so far, I happen to live in societies where dissent was never suppressed, of course, there was criticism, resistance, and ridicule which is expected, but so far, there is no physical threat to me for expressing my views and objections. But when I see people threatening others just for expressing different lines of thought even on places like social media, this makes me wonder why there is so much hatred for dissent? Why can't people discuss and debate rather than threaten each other? I hope the importance of having voices who object or criticize is not forgotten by people who are in power, I remember how people like Jawaharlal Nehru gave so much importance to listening to the other side that didn't agree with them. I hope this culture and attitude of encouraging dissent stays or rather steps up to the next level rather than moving towards majoritarianism. This is why I speak in favor of minority's rights to raise their voice, I speak in favor of discussion and debates rather than forced obedience. Let's hope that the world still believes in moving together rather than moving in the direction of majoritarianism. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Link:
1. http://selfrealization-vinay.blogspot.com/2014/09/why-rights-of-minorities-matter-in-any.html