The New-age 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. However, like all political systems democracy also can be better.

My main issue with democracy is with its propensity to rake up divisions to breed social disharmony, fanning the smoldering smoke to build-up a fire and then with a suave smile offer the solution on paper only and thus allowing the issue to stretch till eternity. Pitted against each other at numerous fronts, social cohesiveness, a must for collective compassion for humanity’s greater good, takes a backseat.   

My other reservation about democracy is the principle of 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 in election as voters, the people who have been fatal to society carry the same political weight as the ones who have been of real help to the society? Shouldn’t the weightage 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 weightage as the healers of humanity like Gandhi, Vivekananda, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammad. Shouldn’t the people with proven records of being better human beings, having more 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, spirituality, 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 a few minor edges on the fringe 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 certified 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 as holding doctorate degrees, gold medals and mushy citations. A cut in the voting right, and the rating coming to a fraction of one, will add to scores of other deterrents that stop a person from going to 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 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 and still more suitable to have Mother Teresa with multiple of one voting right.

The Election Commission has to make 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, barely knowing the issues involved, get swayed by selfish rhetoric and emotional rabble-rousing to elect pitiable leaders to power.

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

It will stop the politicians from digging into the foundations of society with their tools of hate and division. I just want a voter with a proven record of his loving compassionate self to carry multiple of one voting right. Shouldn’t a person, who has been planting trees for decades and has ensured that at least hundred trees survive to grow mature and big, be given at least two voting rights? This is just one example. There are scores of other small time feats that have a huge impact on the health of our main home, mother earth. Isn’t it high time that democracy now turns new-age to help build vibrant, robust, open-minded societies?