An introduction to 'Limited Democracy'

Abraham Lincoln famously defined Democracy as “A government of the people, by the people and for the people”. In our thoroughly modern world, it is considered one of the most liberating forms of government to exist. It provides a choice between the one and the other. The insider and the outsider. The rich and the poor. And that is what our post-modern world thrives on. CHOICE.

From what to wear to how to defecate, we have a choice and a preference in everything. Everyday, we wake up and choose – what to wear, what to have for breakfast, how to get to our place of work, etc. The current capitalistic system also identifies this and provides us with choices in everything possibly imaginable. So why then when it comes to something as essential as our democracy, are our choices so limited?

The 2020 US Presidential elections were a token of this problem of lack of choice. While the incumbent President was widely despised, the faults of the ultimate winner were unabashedly whitewashed to present a picture of spotless heroism. Those who did dare to critique this ‘modern messiah’ of justice and socialism, were branded as too far left to be counted among the sane.

While it is true that the red tie wearing, now ex-President had many faults, that does not make the newer, blue-tie wearing President blameless. In his time as Vice President, sanctioned, if not committed many acts of violence and brutality. These actions MIGHT not have been the direct result of his oversight but, he either agreed to it or was a silent bystander.

Those well versed with democracies may point out countries like India with its multi-party system of elections. As an Indian, I have opinions. Yes, India has many parties. And those many parties have many ideologies. But, those many ideologies mean as much as the blankness of this page before I wrote on it. Parties, their leaders and their spokespersons would say anything to get elected. And getting elected to a small body is not enough. They want to move from zilla to state and from state to centre. It is a personal power fantasy. It is a game played by those who can afford it.

Meanwhile, they create the false idol of CHOICE on which the common man can worship upon. This culture has become so nepotistic that there are only a few pockets of people who can make it to the “ultimate seat” of power. These pockets of people, these political elite make sure that anyone they do not approve of will never reach high enough to bring about measurable change. In such a system, where the only options left are a dichotomy which leads to a game of cat and mouse or, a much more toxic system that gives the illusion of choice, what is the common man to do?

Governance is necessary. The utopia where man lives with a governing body is either impossible or too far away. So, what can you and I as common people with common beliefs do?

Here, I would like to introduce a system of government which I like to call a ‘Limited Democracy’. Now, bear in mind, this is still a work in progress so it can have flaws. And, I am open to discussing these with anyone who has the mind to.

This is how a ‘Limited Democracy’ will function:

It will essentially be a decentralized system of governance, similar to the existing panchayati and municipal systems in India. But, rather than being interwoven into state and central politics, these units will function as an independent, indivisible, whole.
Each unit will have territorial sovereignty assigned to it by a government at the Centre.
The Central government will not interfere in the domestic governance of these units.
The Judiciary will continue its role as the conveyer of justice and interpretor of the Constitution.
State governments will be partially or wholly suspended in order to allow maximum independence to the local governing units.
Since State governments will be miniscule (applying only to certain demographically challenged states in the country), the role of the Parliament (especially the Rajya Sabha) will be limited.
The members of the Central Executive Council will be elected from the elected members of the local governing units based on certain criterion.
No State of local governing unit will have the permission or the right to secede from the Union.

I chose, to term this as a ‘Limited Democracy’ because while the system itself appears to be more democratic, it limits the control that the Central government has on the domestic governance of the country. In my humble opinion, the people who know best how to run a city or a village are the people who live there. Therefore, those sitting in the capital with their cushy chairs and air-conditioned rooms, have no right to make decisions on behalf of the common populous.

Indeed, democracy is a gift. A gift that we won after years of struggle and strife. However, we have led our own democracy to ruins. By concentrating power in the hands of the political elite, we have given goons and hooligans the power to decide our future, our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future. Thus, only by rectifying this and creating a system which is more representative of our country and our people is the need of the hour. Without doing so, we can find ourselves engulfed in a fascist regime quicker than we can scream for help.

Janki Nair

An introduction to 'Limited Democracy'

Comments