Why is democracy more of inclusion than consensus !

A very common debate these days is to have a leader who is selected through consensus. But does the Indian democratic system allows for complete consensus?  And is it really needed ?

Why not have a political system where the supreme of the government body (prime minister in our case) can only be selected if he/she gets 100% of votes? Well, I know most of you would laugh and call me naive in even suggesting this. We all know that it is nearly impossible for any population and more so a population as large as ours to agree completely on anything on anyone.

That's why some smart people have rightly constituted the democratic system, particular but not exclusive to our country where each smaller segment of people can select a local leader for their demographic territory, and this leader can represent the interests of that locality in the national scheme of things. As it is very difficult to bring in so many local leaders with completely different ideology under one roof for single agenda, thus came the concept of political parties with an overarching ideology. This ideology is supposed to drive the working of the people who work within the party. The ideology itself is not rigid and is and should be open to scrutiny and evolution.

But in all this, never is the principle of 'complete consensus' applied. It is assumed that as long as the local leader enjoys the trust of majority of the local population who decide to become part of this political process of selection and the ideology of his party strikes a chord with majority of such segments, leader of the party can be assumed to enjoy confidence of majority viewpoint and hence selected as the supreme of the government body.

This of course is set in context that this person needs to be working within the frame work of guiding principles which the people of the country has accepted in general ( preamble to the constitution ). Thus though the government is not selected by complete consensus, it is expected to work for everyone,which it has to as long as it is working within the guiding framework.

Thus the debate on whether a leader can only become the supreme of government body if he/she enjoys complete support of all ,is contrary to very idea of democracy we practise. It has never happened and is not expected to happen anytime soon. What we need to ensure is that the democratic institutions are so strong that anyone sitting in such influential position can never misuse the power and if he/she does, then corrective action is immediately taken.

Thus we should focus more of our energy in strengthening the pillars of democracy such as election commission, judiciary, administration, vigilance and audit and leave the rest to the people's choice in a free and fair election. That is the correct and only way to establish the democracy our founding fathers had dreamt of.

Is Freedom What It Takes ?

A question often asked while debating if a society has become truly civilised and evolved is at what level do its members enjoy freedom. But lets also ask ourselves, at what level can freedom become the force behind a probable devolution.

"Are you free to do anything you want to do in your country", asked a person from a country in European Union. Before I could answer that, answer to the rhetorical came in, " I am, in mine ..." 

This led me to ask myself, is freedom to do anything we want to do the key to evolution of a truly modern society? This is certainly not the way most Indian kids are brought up. Then are all the righteous ways that we have been tought in India from childhood a mere conspiracy to control and mould the society into a form which some people want?

To reach a conclusion for myself, I thought it would be essential to evaluate the role of freedom in human development. Firstly, perception of freedom gives a person a sense of being able to define own's destiny. This gives him energy to try new things, even if few or all of them fail. He feels that he is in control of the situation, i.e. whatever is happening around is the result of what he chooses to do. Thus it gives him a sense of achievement and pride. Secondly, a free society works like an open market, i.e. the market forces (people, situations, priorities etc) determine the current state and defines the 'well being' for that society. Thus what is good and what is bad is defined by current society and very little pre-definition is applied. Thirdly, for anything gone wrong, there is no one else to blame. Thus it can bring in sense of responsibility in whatever we do.

But if the perception ( or reality, if it exists) of complete freedom is so good, then why do we have societies like India, which define very elaborative set of rules for what it feels are the right things to do. If that is not the way it was meant to be, was it sheer luck that we survived for as long as time can remember? Or can too much freedom make individuals of a society become individualistic to a point where society ceases to exist. 

Again, I felt that in order to understand what is the other side (if there is any), i should evaluate what the 'rules' bring to the table. Firstly, they provide a good point to start thinking. I mean lets be true to ourselves, not all of us are wise enough to take the decisions (right or wrong is a little subjective) and be ready take on the consequences of those decisions. Because there is no undo button in life. Secondly, (specially relevant in context of ancient civilisations) there is lot of wisdom which has been collected over years, and if a wise man (or woman ) with right intentions had used this collective wisdom to make the rules, then society at large can benefit from it ( think of reinventing the wheel every time someones tries to make a car.. I would probably prefer walking ! ). Thirdly, a single human life is not enough ( at least in context of present human lifespan) to actually experience everything ourselves, learn and then change the course of what he may call our 'destiny'. 

But all of above are a lot of options. What is the answer? Actually, like most questions, there is no definitive answer. There can just be opinions. 

What I feel is that freedom is essential, but not definitive. We still require general set of values which should define our society in the time and situation we live in, to be able to apply the energy derived from freedom and use it create some additional value for ourselves and for the generations to come,without getting lost. 

But society should not be static, i.e. the rules should not be definitions put in stone but a set of guiding principles which also provide right explanation for why those rules were formed. And in case not all members of this society have yet evolved enough to understand all the logic of those rules, the guidelines should provide a binding force which has enough faith of the society to be wanting to follow these. But, it should still behave like open market with right regulations to control bad extremities. For it to be sustainable though, it should still be flexible enough to evolve with time and situation and correct itself whenever need arises. (The only catch being finding a selfless human/ group capable of defining new rules without self interests).

In the above context, I have reached a conclusion for myself. The society I am part of has probably the best collective wisdom in the world. And we have already gone past many evolution - devolution cycles. Thus as long as we stick to the guiding principles and still not lose the zeal to improve, evolve and change for better, collective happiness of no 'completely free' society can surpass us. ( and even if it does, I would not mind !)