Comments on: Democracy’s Drawbacks?

By: Vivek G

Vivek G — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:19:51 +0000

sv: I meant to add a point to this post but somehow slipped up. Regarding the “Directive Principle”, the judicial activism in India you mention (especially the so called public interest litigation) is often done on the basis of this Directive Principle. Also, some to the draconian laws including the MRTP law passed during the Emergency had its roots in the same Directive Principle.

The Constitution is supposed to safeguard our liberties by limiting the powers of the government (including the judiciary). The Directive Principle give the state a Carte Blanche to pursue arbitrary policies that are deemed in public interest.

By: Amit Varma

Amit Varma — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:07:22 +0000

SV, fair point. Deserving of an article in itself. Why don’t you write it? I’ll gladly give you contacts of places you can send it. Feel free to email me.

By: sv

sv — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:17:55 +0000

Amit, I agree that individual liberties are in bad shape. But that’s not the facult of the constitution. The Indian constitution, in my view, provides protection for all kinds of free speech and expression. The problem is with the way it’s interpreted by the judges. The judge who ordered the arrest of Khushboo has not read the constitution. Again, the judges are a product of the cultural mindset that is prevalent in the society. The people of Tami Nadu (and elsewhere in India) have not shed their feudalistic attitudes. It looks like they have not heard of Voltaire.

By: docs dope

docs dope — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:18:15 +0000

good stuff

By: Vivek G

Vivek G — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:21:43 +0000

Thanks sv. Valid point. The state directive is not mandatory but it does show an unreserved faith the framers had in the power of the state to achieve “utilitarian” objectives.

Hi Amit: Good points about individual liberties. Especially your last comment that brings to mind a Churchill quote - “Democracy is the worst system except when compared with all others.”

By: sanatan

sanatan — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 14:33:14 +0000

Because of common usage, people tend to use democracy and republic as synonyms. India is the “Republic of India”. We have chosen a democractic way of electing our representatives but in principle we are a republic. This is the problem in using terminology rather loosely. If we were really a democrarcy that the tryanny of the numerical majority would be the rule and a lot of freedoms that not been curtailed as of now would have been curtailed.

Therefore, I suggest, we first start thinking correctly politically and then be extremely vigilant about the increasing curtailment on people’s liberties by the state (just that instead of a communist government or a dictatorship, in India’s case, it is a case of democratic paternalism).

What is needed is a greater emphasis on what it takes to be a great republic where individual liberties cannot be easily curtailed. To get there, I think we need to first stop calling ourselves a democracy, but rather clamour for a new republic, the foundation of which is that individual liberties are not bestowed by the state, although as a result of a social compact, some of them can be curtailed to some extent. Now some may say that such liberties are bestowed by a higher power, well, be that as it may. To me, such liberties are part of living as much as breathing. Once this republican thought gains currency, we can start then think of a platform where the protection of individual liberties from state’s undue curtailment of such liberties can be used to bring about a change in the Indian political sphere.

It is unfortunate that so many us think of democracy and republic in the same sense. Even when Atanu Dey talks about India being a cargo cult democracy, and bemoans the lack institutions that are required to protect individual liberties, those institutions, in my view, are an aspect of a republic.

Finally, we celebrate Republic Day and not Democracy Day. Have we ever wondered why?

By: Amit Varma

Amit Varma — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:14:03 +0000

Um, just to clarify my last comment, I don’t mean to imply that I am against democracy. On the contrary, it strongly believe in it, as any other system would lead to a greater curtailment of individual liberties. But in a democratic system there should be safegurads constitututionally built in to guard those liberties, and this will necessarily mean limiting the powers of the state, as Vivek writes. We need to be protected from both the socialist left and the religious right, regardless of who may enjoy a surge of popularity at a given point in time.

By: Amit Varma

Amit Varma — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 07:55:31 +0000

SV, I agree with Vivek. There are a litany of individual liberties that are not enshrined in the constitution, or that can be legislated away by a government of the majority. The recent banning of dance bars in India is a classic example of that. The continuing illegality of homosexual acts is another example. Hell, just see what poor Khushboo is going through.

By: aak

aak — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:46:13 +0000

The article talks about how the democratic process is holding back the economic reforms and yet economy is doing so well,partly because India’s young population gives it the growing workforce and decreasing number of the dependants.These people spend and invest the money they earn in a way that will serve their personal interests and not ideological interests and thereby fuel the economic growth.This is the real strength or the attraction of the democracy

By: sv

sv — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:24:12 +0000

Vivek, The indian constitution provides for all kinds of fundamental rights that are available in western democracies. directive principles is only one part and these principles do not have mandatory staus. these principles are advisory framework for formulating state policies.