DemocracyEssay Preview: DemocracyReport this essayDemocracy may be a word familiar to most, but still I would like to mention the fact that demos means pertaining to people and kratios means to rule. Thus this word original coined by the Greeks means rule of people as a whole and not by an individual or a privileged soul. It is a concept still misunderstood and misused in some parts of the world where totalitarian regimes and dictatorships have witnessed popular support by usurping democratic labels like in Iraq and Pakistan. By the dictionary definition, democracy is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. In a famous phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.Freedom and democracy are often used in place of each other, but the two are not the same. True, democracy is a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been founded through a long history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, any society must possess time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law to be properly called democratic.
Democracies can be typified into two fundamental categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all individuals, without the elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. This system however seems to be impractical possible only with relatively small numbers of people, say for example in a community organization, village of a developing country, tribal council, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. In rural India the head of such committees are called pancha and the place where issues for a small population of the concerned area are discussed is called panchayat.These meetings are held mostly under a village tree with the maximum number of people who can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.Modern society, with its enormous size, complexities and ramifications offers few avenues for direct democracy. Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public welfare. In the name of the people, such authorities can deal with complex public issues in an intellectual and step-by-step manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of common citizens. How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. In India there is a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office due to majority. But there is always a fine balance between Majority rule and Minority rights.
It was with Indias first democratic leader, Nehru, that the Indian people were initially introduced to democracy. The Indian people live in a very different type of society when compared to the other democratic nations of the world. The Indians were agricultural people and not very industrialized. By Nehru choosing democracy over industrialization, it has taken a lot of time for the idea of industry to catch on. It has only been recently that the Indians have become a part of the computer software industry. The main source of income in India is still crops. Even though India adopted a democratic constitution in 1950, democracy as both a form of government and as an organizing principle of politics continues to be a contentious concept in Indian political discourse. The debate has ranged far and wide giving rise to numerous
troubles.
Since the end of the civil war between the Indus and Indus Empires, democratic politics has changed. This was due, in part, to the Indus being an ethnic minority which was a minority of Hindu nature, and while some may view this in a favorable light, it may not be entirely due to their cultural and physical differences. This is true but it also may be partly attributed to the political environment. It is true that even though Indus have lost most of the Hindu religion, there was much political activity during their time in India; but even the Hindu people also developed quite a great number of political influence and organizations during this period. These political circles were largely based in political circles in India, mostly between political parties, as well as groups of students. While the students and other public sector workers participated in various political activity on a national, national, or provincial level, they participated in these activities on a more local level. In such communities such an organized system can not be seen but only a large part of its functions are carried out. In a political setting the students and other public sector workers are not involved but they are responsible for other functions. The other functions are the administration, the management, and even even the management of the government in Delhi or Madhya Pradesh. It has been argued that even though the universities are run by the political parties, government was, in fact, a part of what was happening in these countries. This has been demonstrated clearly as a major drawback of democratic political life. Although people in most of India continue to vote and to be involved in political work for a long after the election, there is a major difference when it comes to the quality and quantity of work and the quality of education. This difference may be in part due to the fact that in some democracy countries a single high school or technical college is not sufficient for most citizens to learn at that level and has to be attended by several other people, and hence there is a higher education level involved. This lack of access, such as is evidenced by the government of Rajasthan which has had many such colleges set up since 1991 which offer high educational attainment of under 10. The education level of the political leaders is often low, and is largely based on a combination of the traditional social system in the country and the current state of things in India. There are very few studies of political careers in India which consider their quality to be comparable to that of the average public school teacher or university student, as a matter of fact, many other studies were used that are quite comparable with this. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge of any politics, or political party from the educated community of India is highly problematic that was clearly demonstrated at Rajasthan in 1991. In other ways, there may be a significant discrepancy and in some instances we find the educational levels of politicians even higher when compared to the public school teachers of the country. As mentioned earlier, despite the present situation, India’s democracy was not developed in an innovative way. It was not as one would expect. Most importantly to this point we have to add that this lack of democracy may also be to the disadvantage of democratic government in India.
This, I believe, is not the only reason for the political change in India.
Although it may seem too big a deal in terms of political leaders being considered
troubles.
Since the end of the civil war between the Indus and Indus Empires, democratic politics has changed. This was due, in part, to the Indus being an ethnic minority which was a minority of Hindu nature, and while some may view this in a favorable light, it may not be entirely due to their cultural and physical differences. This is true but it also may be partly attributed to the political environment. It is true that even though Indus have lost most of the Hindu religion, there was much political activity during their time in India; but even the Hindu people also developed quite a great number of political influence and organizations during this period. These political circles were largely based in political circles in India, mostly between political parties, as well as groups of students. While the students and other public sector workers participated in various political activity on a national, national, or provincial level, they participated in these activities on a more local level. In such communities such an organized system can not be seen but only a large part of its functions are carried out. In a political setting the students and other public sector workers are not involved but they are responsible for other functions. The other functions are the administration, the management, and even even the management of the government in Delhi or Madhya Pradesh. It has been argued that even though the universities are run by the political parties, government was, in fact, a part of what was happening in these countries. This has been demonstrated clearly as a major drawback of democratic political life. Although people in most of India continue to vote and to be involved in political work for a long after the election, there is a major difference when it comes to the quality and quantity of work and the quality of education. This difference may be in part due to the fact that in some democracy countries a single high school or technical college is not sufficient for most citizens to learn at that level and has to be attended by several other people, and hence there is a higher education level involved. This lack of access, such as is evidenced by the government of Rajasthan which has had many such colleges set up since 1991 which offer high educational attainment of under 10. The education level of the political leaders is often low, and is largely based on a combination of the traditional social system in the country and the current state of things in India. There are very few studies of political careers in India which consider their quality to be comparable to that of the average public school teacher or university student, as a matter of fact, many other studies were used that are quite comparable with this. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge of any politics, or political party from the educated community of India is highly problematic that was clearly demonstrated at Rajasthan in 1991. In other ways, there may be a significant discrepancy and in some instances we find the educational levels of politicians even higher when compared to the public school teachers of the country. As mentioned earlier, despite the present situation, India’s democracy was not developed in an innovative way. It was not as one would expect. Most importantly to this point we have to add that this lack of democracy may also be to the disadvantage of democratic government in India.
This, I believe, is not the only reason for the political change in India.
Although it may seem too big a deal in terms of political leaders being considered