Are God and Satan the same under democracy?

Democracy, by modern day consensus, is the best—among others—form of governance. With some skepticism, it is agreed that it is best among the worst. It even appears so. But that doesn’t mean all is well with democracy. No system is perfect. Perfection is just a mirage. But like all political systems democracy also can be better.

My main issue with democracy is with the same voting weight carried by all individuals as voters. The best and the worst carry the same political weight, at least as voters, when it comes to contributing to the process of selecting the most suitable representatives and hence the best government. Isn’t it ironical that the people who have been fatal for society carry the same political weight as the ones who have been of real help to the society as voters? Shouldn’t the weight of votes vary as per the contribution or potential of individual voters?

Under the present system of voting Hitler, Stalin and Edi Amin, responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent lives, carry the same vote weight as the healers of humanity like Gandhi, Bose, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammad. Shouldn’t the people with proven records of being better human beings, having better understanding of the issues of common interests, have more voting power than the criminals, social degenerates and blood-shedders.

Common people, busy in the small domain of life to survive, carrying the good and bad in them, can have the value of one to their vote. The criminals, terrorists, law breakers and hate-mongers can have fraction of one in proportion to their crimes. And achievers and contributors in academics, sports, arts, science and culture can have the multiple of one to their vote. The latter with their better selves, more awareness and more constructive nature will turn the game of democracy far more dynamic and vibrant than it is now.

Since the best and the worst just occupy the minority edges of society in terms of numbers, it will not shake the present system’s foundations immediately. But it will act as a system of reward and punishment for the majority to maintain and improve their political ratings. Who doesn’t want to grow? And certifiedly more so. A better political rating on the basis of standing and achievement in life will look good on anybody’s CV. It will be as good holding doctorate degrees, gold medals and mushy citations. A cut in the voting right, and rating coming to a fraction of one, will add to scores of other deterrents that stop a person from going the wrong side to be lesser of a human being in all its forms.

A voting right cannot be static. It cannot be frozen for all times irrespective of best and the worst deeds of the holders. In case a person comes out worst, it should be abrogated altogether. In case of glorious achievement, the person should have multiple of one. It is a suitable political reward. It’s better to have a Hitler without any voting right. Still more suitable to have Mother Teresa with multiple of one voting right.

The Election Commission has to turn the voting right a bit dynamic with the possibilities of upgrade and degrade and even outright abrogation. It will save democracy from being the puppet of poor choices where masses, hardly knowing what they are voting for, hardly knowing the issues involves, get swayed by selfish rhetoric and emotional rabble rousing to elect pitiable leaders to power.

The differential voting rights will carry the democracy to the next stage. The elected representatives will be better and people will have one more push to be better.