[Goanet]Democracy .....
Democracy In a multi party system Tomazinho Cardozo Democracy is the best form of governance because it is the people who posses the power of deciding who their rulers should be. A genuine democracy, therefore, is an active and progressive force responsive to the will of the people. Accordingly, the successful working of democracy will depend on the intelligence, interest and civic sense of its citizens. Is it, therefore, possible to create such citizens in a thickly populated and a semi-literate country like India? Is it not atleast possible to have genuine democracy in a small state like Goa in which the population is low and the literacy rate very high? In our daily lives, we have the habit of blaming politicians for anything and everything, good or bad, that takes place in our society. Democracy and democratically-run governments can be a boon for the development of the society provided each and every citizen acquires a high degree of civic sense. This requires self-control and devotion to any common cause. People should be prepared to sink minor differences and co-operate for the general good of the society. In other words a give-and-take attitude will go a long way in establishing an ideal democracy. The multi-party democratic system followed in our country is yet another disadvantage to impose the will of the majority. When there are more than two political parties, it becomes difficult to get more than 50% votes in an election. As the votes are distributed among numerous parties, all parties poll less than 50% of votes and are able to form the Government. In fact, a democratically elected government should have been a government elected by a majority of the people. This does not happen in our country and we, in the name of democracy, are ruled by a government elected by a minority. The present trend of coalition governments is still worse. We have discussed this earlier and hence I would not like to comment on it again. I think our democracy can be an example to others if our political leaders, leaving aside all their selfish interests, are courageous enough to turn to a two party system. I will not hesitate to say that the present democratic form in our country encourages communalism. The irony of the situation is that even the political parties swearing in the name of secularism field a Hindu candidate in a constituency dominated by Hindus, a Muslim candidate in a constituency dominated by Muslims, a Christian candidate in a constituency having a majority of Christians, so on and so forth. These being the facts, in what way are our leaders promoting secularism? The system also indirectly advocates the evils of caste and creed in our society. Otherwise how can one explain the concept of fielding candidates from the Bhandari community, the Saraswat community, etc. etc. in the constituencies having a sizeable population of these communities? Organization of elections is the first step for the formation of the democratic government. It is unfortunate to observe that the process of elections, the very foundation of our democratic set up, is corrupted with communalism and casteism. In the present times politicians have the tendency to make politics a gainful profession. Gone are the days when politics was pure social service. Extravagant expenditure in the day to day administration, including the facilities to the legislators, has become a way of political living. Can a poor country like India afford these luxuries? Interference of elected representatives in each and every aspect of administration has rendered the bureaucracy practically ineffective. Many a time laws are bent as per the wishes of the elected representatives to suit their vested interests. Party organizations exercise undue influence on the government and create lot of tensions in various communities in our country. This is what todays democracy contributes to the development of our society. The concept of democracy is good. It is an ideal system of governance. But instead of using it for the betterment of the people it is being misused for self development. It is not easy to remedy the situation. Even the developed countries have not achieved that much maturity in politics. But a beginning has to be made somewhere. The major question is whether we are electing the right people for the right posts. The candid answer is no. This is because of our party affiliations. We vote for the party without considering the character of the person for whom we vote. This trend has to be changed. Past services to the society and the character of the candidate should be the prime factor to be considered before casting our precious vote. Then only honest and sincere people will be at the helm of affairs. And this is in the hands of the citizens the voters. Shall we be in a position to see in our life time the enlightened citizens of our country voting for the individuals instead
[Goanet] Democracy
Dear Fred, I have just read your article on the Soccoro Panchayat and Sorter's comments. My thoughts on "democracy" for whatever it is worth, are as follows: Democracy has been defined as "government of the people, for the people, and by the people"But in practise, is it really so ? Take the first steps in the so=called "democratic" process.the selection of candidates..Who does the selection ? are the voters involved in the selection ? NO Once the selection is done by the political parties under influences of various kinds, the voters are asked to vote for candidates , whom they have had no voice in selecting .Is this the way it should be done ? Do the voters have any say in refusing to elect a person selected by the "party" or whatever ? Why is the voter not given the right to reject any or all of the candidates ? A clause should be inserted to determine the voters right to accept or reject any or all of the candidates who have been included in the "list of candidates" At the final stage, the "candidate" is declared "elected" if he or she has the majority votes. Can it be said that the candidate has a "majority" vote if he or she gets 2 votes out of a population of eligible voters of 10 ? Can the so - called "elected" candidate be eligible to represent a community having only 20% of the votes when the rest of the population have abstained indicating a negative vote for him ? The criterion of "Majority" needs to be defined..It should be majority of the population entitled and eligible to vote. A person who does does not get a "majority" vote should not be declared elected . Angelo
Re: [Goanet] Democracy
A true democracy needs to include a Bill of Rights protecting every single person. Without that a democracy can descend into anarchy. For example, the "majority" can vote to oppress the "minority". The majority cannot be allowed to "rule" in this case, in a true democracy. > --- Angelo D'Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Fred, > > I have just read your article on the Soccoro > Panchayat and Sorter's > comments. > > My thoughts on "democracy" for whatever it > is worth, are as follows: > Democracy has been defined as "government of the > people, for the people, and > by the people"But in practise, is it really > so ? > > Take the first steps in the so=called > "democratic" > process.the selection of > candidates..Who does the > selection ? are the voters involved in the selection > ? NO > > Once the selection is done by the political > parties under influences > of various kinds, the voters are asked to vote for > candidates , whom they have > had no voice in selecting .Is this the way it > should be done ? > > Do the voters have any say in refusing to elect > a person selected by > the "party" or whatever ? > > Why is the voter not given the right to reject > any or all of the > candidates ? A clause should be inserted to > determine the voters > right to accept or reject any or all of the > candidates who have been included > in the "list of candidates" > > At the final stage, the "candidate" is declared > "elected" if he or she has > the majority votes. > > Can it be said that the candidate has a > "majority" vote if he or she gets > 2 votes out of a population of eligible voters of 10 > ? Can the so - > called "elected" candidate be eligible to represent > a community having only > 20% of the votes when the rest of the population > have abstained indicating a > negative vote for him ? > > The criterion of "Majority" needs to be > defined..It should be > majority of the population entitled and eligible to > vote. A person who does > does not get a "majority" vote should not be > declared elected . > > Angelo > > >
[Goanet]democracy, freedom and terrorism
This was a very interesting article. Patrick Buchanan, amongst others, has voiced similar sentiment. For those not in the know - Buchanan is not exactly liberal (to put it mildly). http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/magazine/06ADVISER.html THE SECURITY ADVISER No Returns By RICHARD A. CLARKE Published: February 6, 2005 in the New York Times Last month, the self-appointed head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, railed against ''this evil principle of democracy'' and said he would send his fighters to kill people who tried to vote. Days before, in Washington, President Bush delivered an inaugural address focused almost exclusively on promoting democracy, which he portrayed as an antidote for ''our vulnerability.'' His theory was that ''resentment and tyranny'' simmer in undemocratic nations, breeding violent ideologies that will ''cross the most defended borders'' to pose a ''mortal threat.'' Given these statements by Zarqawi and Bush, Americans might well conclude that Al Qaeda's primary aim is preventing democracy. Following the president's theory, they might assume terrorism cannot grow in democracies and that the best way to deal with it is to create more democracies. Unfortunately, both beliefs may be mistaken. Zarqawi and his followers do oppose democracy in Iraq, but they do so partly because they believe that the continuing electoral process (a constitutional referendum is planned for October of this year and a national election for December) is an American imposition. In this they are joined by the many Iraqis who simply want an occupying army to leave. In addition, Zarqawi's group seeks support from the Sunni Arab minority, which in any democratic process will lose power as compared with what it had in the decades of Baath Party rule. Beyond Iraq, in the greater Muslim world, opposing democracy is not uppermost in the mind of Al Qaeda or the larger jihadist network. (In Saudi Arabia, for example, Al Qaeda wants the monarchy replaced by a more democratic government.) Radical Islamists are ultimately seeking to create something orthogonal to our model of democracy. They are fighting to create a theocracy or, in their vernacular, a caliphate (a divinely inspired government administered by a caliph as Allah's viceroy on earth). They are also seeking to evict American influence from nations with a Muslim majority (or even, as in Iraq, a Muslim minority, given their view that Shiites are, as Zarqawi put it, part of a ''wicked sect'' and not true Muslims). In pursuing these goals, today's loosely affiliated Islamic terrorist groups are part of a trend dating back to at least 1928, when the Muslim Brotherhood was founded to promote Islam and fight colonialism. This trend hasn't abated with the spread of democracy. In Indonesia, which just achieved its third democratic transfer of power since Suharto's rule ended in 1998, the jihadist movement is growing stronger, as it is in other Asian democracies. In Algeria, free elections in 1990 and 1991 resulted in victories for those who advocated a jihadist theocracy. Throughout Western Europe, the jihadists are becoming deeply rooted among disaffected Muslim youth. Free elections, in short, have not dimmed the desire of jihadists to create a caliphate. Even without jihadists, Western democracies have hardly been immune to terrorism. The Irish Republican Army, the Baader-Meinhof gang of Germany and the Red Brigades of Italy all developed in democracies. Indeed, in the United States, the largest terrorist attack before Sept. 11 was conducted in Oklahoma by fully enfranchised American citizens. Thus, it is not the lack of democracy that produced jihadist movements, nor will the creation of democracies quell them. To the extent that President Bush's new policy is turned into action, the jihadists may well take it as further provocative American meddling, similar to the reaction to the president's earlier attempt at reform in the region, the Greater Middle East Initiative, which was dead on arrival. President Bush's democracy-promotion policy will be appropriate and laudable at the right time in the right nations, but it is not the cure for terrorism and may divert us from efforts needed to rout Al Qaeda and reduce our vulnerabilities at home. The president is right that resentment is growing and that it is breeding terrorism, but it is chiefly resentment of us, not of the absence of democracy. The 9/11 Commission had a proposal similar to the president's, but more on point: a battle of ideas to persuade more Muslims that jihadist terrorism is a perversion of Islam. Most Middle East experts agree, however, that any American hand in the battle of ideas will, for now, be counterproductive. For many in the Islamic world, the United States is still associated with such acts as having made the 250,000 person city of Falluja uninhabitable. Because of the enormous resentment of the United States government in the Islamic world, documented in numerous opini
Re: [Goanet]democracy, freedom and terrorism
I have no idea who made the following post as no name of poster is mentioned. The post identifies Mr. Pat Buchanan as "not exactly a liberal". However, for those not familiar with Mr. Buchanan, he is a right-wing gadfly and an "isolationist" in foreign policy and believes that the US should not intervene to help anyone other than themselves, a position that is rejected by most conservatives and many liberals, and certainly by the Bush administration. A "gadfly" in politics is one who switches political philosophies to suit his personal interests, and Mr. Buchanan therefore reappears every now and then as a Republican or as an Independent. If it were up to Mr. Buchanan the US would seal its borders and discourage immigration from countries where the primary ethnicity are "people of color" and not discourage immigration from countries where the primary ethnicity are "colorless" people. He thinks "colorless" people assimilate better, which is patently bogus as anyone familiar with the American tapestry or melting pot would know. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This was a very interesting article. > > Patrick Buchanan, amongst others, has voiced similar sentiment. For those not in the know - Buchanan is not exactly liberal (to put it mildly). > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/magazine/06ADVISER.html >
[Goanet]"Democracy by Numbers" (EPW Editorial)
Excerpt from: http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2005&leaf=02&filename=8284&filet ype=html (Economic & Political Weekly, Feb 19, 2005) .. ... ... .. ... ... The Goan crisis brings to the fore once again questions about the nature of the checks and balances, the Constitution ostensibly devised to sustain democratic traditions - the role of the governor, the speaker and whether the anti-defection law is equipped with necessary safeguards. It is ironical that in a state more 'stable' than others, Goa's politicians continue to provide its only source of instability; reshaping and remodelling alliances to stave off 'instability' is perhaps linked to the very nature of the state. A population of 14 lakhs has 40 members to represent it; thus for the voter, individual appeal and the degree of familiarity a candidate cultivates matters more than party image. In Goa's pre-statehood days, the two older parties, the MGP and UGP, had clear representative bases. The former was mass-based whereas the UGP was dominated by landlords, including catholics and brahmins. But Goa has seen much transition since then. The 1970s saw land reform legislation, the 1980s onwards the state found increasing popularity as a tourist destination, more recently, it is a much sought after industrial hub. Yet, Goa's political leaders are clearly unable to give voice to the state's new, emerging identity and aspirations. For a stronger political ethos to emerge, it is simply not enough to put in place stricter constitutional measures that ensure political defectors are not rewarded, Goa's changing identity needs to be better reflected by people who want to represent it in government. -
[Goanet] DEMOCRACY BY EXAMPLE ... IN AIRSPACE CONTROLS
The breathtaking contrast in the airpsace controls used by President Bush's aircraft while in Delhi and those imposed by our own VVIPs including their military lackeys seem to provide an object lesson in democracy which we might do well to emulate at the earliest. It seems the only requirement for Air Force One's safety and security was to space the use of Delhi's runway by a mere 10 minutes ahead of take-off or landing. This is in start contrast to the tendency to close down the runway for hours on end for Indian VVIPs/Defence operations and throw airline schedules completely out of gear for long periods). Air Force One landed from Kabul on Wednesday. It took-off for Hyderabad on Thursday, returning a number of hours later and then took-off for Islamabad the same night. TOI, March 5, in a report ttled " Air Force One gives flying lessons to Indian VVIPs" called it an example of a "minimally invasive" operation. Would our airspace controls over airports such as Dabolim qualify as "butchery"? Maybe what we are seeing is the contrast between "oldest democracy" (where public convenience is given topmost priority all the way down the line) and "largest democracy" (where public inconvenience is cheap).
[Goanet]DEMOCRACY GOA-ING GOA-ING GONE
GOA POLITICAL CRISIS DEMOCRACY GOA-ING GOA-ING GONENorms? Only susegado!The reason Goa politicians behave the way they do is because they feel they can get away with it.');//-- >UDAY BHEMBRE ');//--> Posted online: Thursday, February 10, 2005 at hours IST Several things have been tarnishing the otherwise fair image of Goa; but nothing causes irreparable damage like the greed for power of politicians who have neither love for democracy nor respect for the Constitution. The sordid drama that was played out in the hall of the Goa Legislative Assembly on February 2 was the latest attack of this malaise. In the last week of January the BJP-led coalition government in Goa lost its majority as four party MLAs resigned from the party, giving up membership of the Legislative Assembly, and two ministers, one of the MGP and the other Independent, quit the government and the coalition. Consequently, the strength of the coalition was reduced from 24 to 18 in a House of 40 members. As the effective strength of the House was 36, the ruling coalition had lost majority outside the House and in the House it was in minority as soon as the Speaker, who belonged to the BJP, occupied his chair. The local leaders of the Congress demanded dismissal of the Manohar Parrikar- led government; while the government sought a floor test. Governor S C Jamir was fair enough and convened the sitting of the Assembly for a vote of confidence on February 2. In the House, just before the vote, Speaker Vishwas Satarkar ordered that Independent MLA Philip Neri Rodrigues leave the House for unruly behaviour, when he was sitting quietly in his seat. The Opposition protested; but the Speaker called the marshal to physically remove Rodrigues from the House. The Opposition members surrounded Rodrigues and prevented the marshal from removing him. The Speaker then called a posse of police, who removed him forcibly. This led to pandemonium in the House. In that confusion, the Speaker put the motion to vote and declared that it is carried by 18 to 6 votes. Governor Jamir had given a chance to the Parrikar-led government to prove its majority; but the ruling coalition misused the opportunity to manipulate the vote by resorting to undemocratic and unconstitutional methods through the Speaker. What is the truth? It will be worthwhile to trace the sequence of events since the Assembly elections of May 2002. There was no clear mandate for any party. The results were BJP: 17; Congress: 16, UGDP: 3, MGP: 2, NCP: 1 and Independent: 1. Parrikar formed the government along with three UGDP and two MGP MLAs and 1 Independent. It was a coalition, but it was not given any name, there was no common minimum programme and there was no coordination committee either. However, Parrikar felt insecure right from the day of formation of the government. He, therefore, embarked upon a political plan to engineer defections from the UGDP and MGP to the BJP to convert the coalition government into a BJP government. He knew that the MLAs of the two regional parties and the Independent MLA could desert the coalition easily and at any point of time and that as BJP MLAs, defecting again from the party would not be possible. Parrikar put his plan into operation before the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution was amended. He was partially successful as out of five MLAs of the regional parties, only two defected to the BJP. They were Monserrate of the UGDP and Pandurang Madkaikar of the MGP. That raised the strength of the BJP in the House to 19, still two short of absolute majority. After the amendment of the Tenth Schedule, defections resorted to in the manner earlier described was not possible. Parrikar, therefore, enticed a Congress MLA, Isidore Fernandes, to resign from the Congress and to contest the same seat on a BJP ticket. Fernandes was elected, but it only helped the BJP reach the halfway mark of 20. Thereafter, dissensions developed within the coalition and added to it was the threat of disqualification of two BJP MLAs, Rajendra Arlekar and Dayanand Mandrekar, against whom election petitions are lying before the Panaji Bench of the Bombay High Court. Parrikar once again felt insecure and vulnerable. Recent developments described below are consequences of that increased insecurity. On January 27, Parrikar precipitated the fall of his own government. He got the outfit of UGDP(Secular) MLA Mickey Pacheco merged into the BJP. He had earlier unceremoniously sacked Pacheco from his ministry. That very day he stripped one of his ministers, Atanasio Monserrate, of his main portfolio of Town and Country Planning, probably to cut him to size. But Parrikar underestimated Monserrates clout and the extent of dissent that was brewing within the coalition. Two days later, four BJP MLAs resigned from the party (and from the Assembly too) and two ministers, one of the MGP and the other Independent, deserted his g
[Goanet]DEMOCRACY IS ALIVE AND KICKING IN INDIA
In an age where our politicians will do everything under the sun to grab and cling on to power, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi has shown an unparalleled commitment to the country by selflessly declining to accept the position of Prime Minister. It would be nice to see more leaders willing to resist the temptation of the chair and volunteer to do organizational work, something a party like Congress in particular desperately needs. It was disheartening to see MPs playing tantrums and lobbing for cabinet berths and some of them jockeying for particular portfolios. It shows that they want plum positions for ulterior and selfish motives otherwise they should have accepted any position bestowed on them by the Prime Minister. Our own Churchill Alemao also joined the queue. The priests in Goa might have helped him get elected but their prayers may not have been enough to see another miracle. In a way Churchill must be content as an MP and concentrate on strengthening the party in Goa. He may not have had the language and administrative skills required to be a Central Minister. Laloo Yadav being a double graduate may find the sailing rough himself. There are no crash courses for enabling the MP to acquire the skills required to be a successful Minister otherwise Churchill would have been the first to enroll. Churchill's 10-second speech at the Congress Parliamentary party in the Central Hall of Parliament on May 18th has left a lot to be desired. It was a speech Churchill Alemao will regret having made. It must have not impressed Sonia Gandhi the least, especially coming from an MP from India's No 1 state. Churchill's inefficiency may not be the only reason that Sonia denied him a ministerial berth. Sonia and the other leaders must be doubting his loyalty to the party. Churchill till recently had been hob-nobbing with the BJP leaders and has enjoyed Chief Minister Parrikar's largesse. Sonia decided to listen to her inner voice and decline a position of power. Ambika Soni followed suit. Will some of the Congress leaders in Goa follow suit instead of all aspiring to the Chief Minister's chair? The chair may have four legs but can accommodate only one is something the Congressmen seem unable to digest. Now Mrs. Gandhi will have to give her attention to settling the affairs of the Goa unit of the Congress. Mr. Pratapsingh Rane should be told in no uncertain terms to make his choice. He cannot have his cake and eat it. He's had the best of two worlds for too long. Life has been shinning for the Ranes and their feel good factor is there to see. All good things have to come to an end. The sooner the better. A tough decision for the Congress but one they cannot afford to delay any longer. The BJP, which has been badly bruised, must still be recovering from the nightmares of defeat. The party knows very well that Atal Behari Vajpayee is their only hope so in all probability will foist him as leader of Opposition and deny the former Prime Minister the rest and retirement he so very much merits. Bharat Uday yatra and the high tech multi crore-election campaign by the BJP could not brainwash the people of India. "India Shinning" and "feel good factor" are phrases this election will be remembered for. The BJP knows it cannot survive without Atal Behari Vajpayee. The party was expecting to win the elections by projecting Vajpayee as PM but after elections installing Advani as PM, someone not acceptable to any secular Indian. Advani who has his very fundamentalist ideologies has a giant share to play in sowing the seeds of communal disharmony in our nation. The BJP projecting Vajpayee, as a secular person did not work as his true colours showed up and the people of world's biggest democracy could not be taken for a ride. Manmohan Singh has a very balanced cabinet. All regions have been accommodated. Minorities and backward communities have been well represented. It would have been nice to see more women and youth inducted. But the Prime Minister knows what best for our country and of course his political compulsion and other limitations must have been taken into consideration. The recent election saw a quite a bit of party hopping and migration. Many who were lured into joining the BJP on being promised something or the other may be having second thoughts. Businessmen will have nothing to lose as they usually have half a foot in every party. So for them the sun shines whoever wins. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) has to be commended for unanimously choosing Dr Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister. He is one, if not the only clean, impeccable and stain-free politician. In fact he is more of an administrator than a politician. So in a way Mrs. Gandhi evolved the right strategy, a good arrangement, by proposing Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister. She will galvanize and strengthen the party base something she has remarkably achieved. Dr Manmohan Singhs government will have the initial teething aches and pains any government especi
[Goanet]DEMOCRACY IS ALIVE AND KICKING IN INDIA
In an age where our politicians will do everything under the sun to grab and cling on to power, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi has shown an unparalleled commitment to the country by selflessly declining to accept the position of Prime Minister. It would be nice to see more leaders willing to resist the temptation of the chair and volunteer to do organizational work, something a party like Congress in particular desperately needs. It was disheartening to see MPs playing tantrums and lobbing for cabinet berths and some of them jockeying for particular portfolios. It shows that they want plum positions for ulterior and selfish motives otherwise they should have accepted any position bestowed on them by the Prime Minister. Our own Churchill Alemao also joined the queue. The priests in Goa might have helped him get elected but their prayers may not have been enough to see another miracle. In a way Churchill must be content as an MP and concentrate on strengthening the party in Goa. He may not have had the language and administrative skills required to be a Central Minister. Laloo Yadav being a double graduate may find the sailing rough himself. There are no crash courses for enabling the MP to acquire the skills required to be a successful Minister otherwise Churchill would have been the first to enroll. Churchill's 10-second speech at the Congress Parliamentary party in the Central Hall of Parliament on May 18th has left a lot to be desired. It was a speech Churchill Alemao will regret having made. It must have not impressed Sonia Gandhi the least, especially coming from an MP from India's No 1 state. Churchill's inefficiency may not be the only reason that Sonia denied him a ministerial berth. Sonia and the other leaders must be doubting his loyalty to the party. Churchill till recently had been hob-nobbing with the BJP leaders and has enjoyed Chief Minister Parrikar's largesse. Sonia decided to listen to her inner voice and decline a position of power. Ambika Soni followed suit. Will some of the Congress leaders in Goa follow suit instead of all aspiring to the Chief Minister's chair? The chair may have four legs but can accommodate only one is something the Congressmen seem unable to digest. Now Mrs. Gandhi will have to give her attention to settling the affairs of the Goa unit of the Congress. Mr. Pratapsingh Rane should be told in no uncertain terms to make his choice. He cannot have his cake and eat it. He's had the best of two worlds for too long. Life has been shinning for the Ranes and their feel good factor is there to see. All good things have to come to an end. The sooner the better. A tough decision for the Congress but one they cannot afford to delay any longer. The BJP, which has been badly bruised, must still be recovering from the nightmares of defeat. The party knows very well that Atal Behari Vajpayee is their only hope so in all probability will foist him as leader of Opposition and deny the former Prime Minister the rest and retirement he so very much merits. Bharat Uday yatra and the high tech multi crore-election campaign by the BJP could not brainwash the people of India. "India Shinning" and "feel good factor" are phrases this election will be remembered for. The BJP knows it cannot survive without Atal Behari Vajpayee. The party was expecting to win the elections by projecting Vajpayee as PM but after elections installing Advani as PM, someone not acceptable to any secular Indian. Advani who has his very fundamentalist ideologies has a giant share to play in sowing the seeds of communal disharmony in our nation. The BJP projecting Vajpayee, as a secular person did not work as his true colours showed up and the people of world's biggest democracy could not be taken for a ride. Manmohan Singh has a very balanced cabinet. All regions have been accommodated. Minorities and backward communities have been well represented. It would have been nice to see more women and youth inducted. But the Prime Minister knows what best for our country and of course his political compulsion and other limitations must have been taken into consideration. The recent election saw a quite a bit of party hopping and migration. Many who were lured into joining the BJP on being promised something or the other may be having second thoughts. Businessmen will have nothing to lose as they usually have half a foot in every party. So for them the sun shines whoever wins. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) has to be commended for unanimously choosing Dr Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister. He is one, if not the only clean, impeccable and stain-free politician. In fact he is more of an administrator than a politician. So in a way Mrs. Gandhi evolved the right strategy, a good arrangement, by proposing Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister. She will galvanize and strengthen the party base something she has remarkably achieved. Dr Manmohan Singhs government will have the initial teething aches and pains any government especi
[Goanet]Democracys inconvenient fact - PETER RONALD DE SOUZA
Democracys inconvenient fact - PETER RONALD deSOUZA Making sense of Indian democracy has been for many of us a continuing obsession. This is driven not by curiosity alone for deep down, at the bottom of our souls, is the fervent hope that despite its lapses and deficits democracy is determinedly moving India forward. From the grim building blocks of caste and feudal India, the indignity of exclusions and marginality, comes the belief that a decent society will emerge because of democracy. It is modern Indias silver bullet. Enough is not enough. We need more democracy. There is an implicit teleology to this belief which holds that which comes later constitutes an advancement over that which has come earlier, that the processes which democracy engenders are invariably morally superior to the practices that preceded it. While one would generally agree with such a progressive reading of history, since democracy does push forward an egalitarian and participatory public agenda, one would, however, like to complicate it a little by the introduction of an inconvenient fact. This strategy of using an inconvenient fact to problematize a generalization has great heuristic value since it makes the self-evident truth less self-evident; it compels us to think not just morally but also spatially and temporally and requires us to search for caveats and qualifiers. The history of democracy is such a dialectical history where processes begin to undermine institutions and where institutions respond by introducing new qualifiers that processes then again begin to undermine. I shall illustrate this by looking at the last two decades of party competition in Goa. These decades of democratic politics in Goa can be read from several viewpoints: the subaltern viewpoint which sees it as a great step forward when voice has been given to suppressed and excluded groups who have now entered politics and begun to make it their own in their own way; the elite viewpoint which sees it as a period of institutional decay when the new political leaders who have come from among the masses and who, through their political behaviour, stretch the limits of what is permissible in a democracy, keep redefining its Laxman Rekha; the political economy viewpoint which sees the state as being taken over by many vested interests, especially the class of politicians and bureaucrats, and the super-rich mine-owners, all of whom extract considerable rent from it, converting the state into a rentier state; or the institutional viewpoint which sees the state as evolving through a dialectical relationship between institution and process wherein the former regulates political behaviour and the latter seeks to stretch such regulation to its limits and sometimes to go beyond it. All these viewpoints have certain validity. Rather than discuss the political in Goa through each of these lenses I shall, instead, present Goa as an inconvenient fact for Indian democracy. The aspect that I wish to dwell on is the political behaviour of elected political representatives within the party system in Goa since it poses a challenge for our thinking about representative democracy. Most of the commentaries on such political behaviour in Goa either denounce it (which is often the case) on the assumption that there is a model of good behaviour from which this is regarded as a gross deviation, an imaginary model which does not exist anywhere, or just ignore it. What we need to do, instead, is to analyze it since it contains some knotty problems for our thinking about representation in a democracy. The following will give us a sense of what happens when electoral democracy begins to be the main measure of the democratic system. In the 43 years since Goas liberation from colonial rule, the party system went (perhaps evolved!) through the following four phases. I shall discuss these four phases somewhat sketchily, since what I wish to do is to mainly present their distinctive features. In the first phase from 1963-1977, the party system in Goa exhibited the classical pattern of a two party alternating system where one party, the MGP (Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party), formed the government and the other party, the UGP (United Goans Party), formed the opposition. This produced a contest between the two local parties, each with distinct social bases that they sought to mobilize and consolidate behind them. Each presented a vision of Goa that was then offered to the electorate. The MGP vision, based on giving presence to the Bahujan in the state, seemed to get more takers and over the decade and a half gained in support. This first phase can be interpreted as one when the representative, even though at some social remove from the social base, acts on behalf of the welfare or interests of the represented. In this phase representative democracy has arrived but not been appropriated by the masses and hence its functioning is still guided by the classes who set t
RE: [Goanet]DEMOCRACY IS ALIVE AND KICKING IN INDIA
From: airesrod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Goanet]DEMOCRACY IS ALIVE AND KICKING IN INDIA Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 08:24:08 +0100 (BST) It was disheartening to see MPs playing tantrums and lobbing for cabinet berths and some of them jockeying for particular portfolios. Just disheartening, dear Aires? Forsooth! Unmitigatedly disgusting ... disgraceful ... demented! Sycophancy elevated to newer heights of self-flagelating humiliation. Alfred _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##
[Goanet]Democracy in the Catholic Church: is it time? (fwd)
Was having some problem in getting across to the site. FN -- Forwarded message -- From http://venus.opendemocracy.net/t/1842/38812/2/0/ The death of Pope John Paul II, just announced by the Vatican, brings the long reign of the 20th century's last pope to a close. The distinguished writer Neal Ascherson assesses the pope's role in the momentous events of his lifetime and asks what is Karol Wojtyla's legacy for democracy? Read "Pope John Paul II and democracy" by Neal Ascherson here http://venus.opendemocracy.net/t/1842/38812/439/0/ At openDemocracy.net we believe that democracy is a vital challenge for the Catholic church. 120 cardinals, the overwhelming majority of whom have been appointed by Karol Wojtyla, will choose the next pope. One billion Catholics will have no vote. At the beginning of its third millennium, we ask, why is the Catholic church not more democratic? In the coming days senior Catholics will pose questions vital to the future of the church: how far should governance be reformed? Should the power of the Vatican be curtailed? Who should lead the church and how should they be chosen? How democratic can it become? What role should women play in the 21st century church? Should all Catholics have a vote? Austen Ivereigh, press secretary to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, and the eminent Jesuit Michael Walsh, will start the debate. We are opening our online forum to discuss this crucial issue, hosted by our Faith & Ideas columnist Dave Belden. Join the forum here. http://venus.opendemocracy.net/t/1842/38812/440/0/ Please join this important debate
