Democracy: The Rule of Mighty; not of Majority
Is democracy really the government of the people, by the people, for the people, in the contemporary era? Well, in the presence of the western capitalist system, it does not appear so. Public participation — the bedrock of democracy — is a mere delusion that is exploited, cheated and manipulated by the ruling elite. How can you call it a democracy when people are intentionally kept ignorant by the bigwigs so that the people may act in a certain way.
When a common man goes out to cast his vote, he is not bringing any change in the society, he only gives a reaction in accordance with what he has been indoctrinated through media, culture and created social norms. Rousseau argued that the general will of the people could not be decided by elected representatives and I agree with him on this. The moment we elect and send an individual to the parliament to make decisions on our behalf, we lose our right to participate in the government. Because parliamentarians are more likely to serve the interests of important people than ours. What they deliver us is merely a compensation to keep us loyal to them. So that the system keeps on working and they keep on ruling us.
Keeping the theories apart, if we look at the practical scenario, slogans of democracy are nothing but mere instruments to enslave the minds of people and to give them this misconception that they actually have the power. And it in almost every democratic country in a variety of ways. More the democracy is advanced, the more the methods of enslavement are sophisticated. People are actually not free, they are only made to believe that they are free. Media, money, desires, fantasies, and amusement are the means to control their minds. And we all know who owns these powers — the Rich.
Actually, when we use this word democracy in today’s world, it simply means a system of government that allows every adult to participate in the government, BUT as per his social status and economic authority. It is not the rule of the majority, rather the rule of a minority ruling elite over the remaining bulk of the population. However, a common man ignores everything when he gets the rule of law, security, infrastructure, justice, and sources of amusement. That is why democracy appears nice in the wealthy countries but in the developing world, it reveals its ugly face because poor governments do not afford to provide the abovementioned facilities. As a result, authoritarianism is more likely to evolve there.
So, can this idea be improved? can it be amended to actually have a better system for the majority of the population? Yes, to some extent. The rule and participation of the people can be fully ensured at the grassroot level. People can use their right to participate at a very basic level. That would be like direct democracy — the purest form of democracy. Democracy is feasible and possible in small populations with simple issues. As it starts going to the above levels, it starts losing its real essence. And finally, when it reaches the national level, the will or vote of a single individual becomes totally insignificant. At this stage, the individuality of the voters vanishes and turns into an irrational choice of the bulk of the population. Here, those having economic resources and persuasive power steer the government. And to keep the system running smoothly, they create such circumstances that do not let the “have-nots” realize what they are missing and what the “haves” are gaining.
Therefore, the best and the only possible way to exercise democracy is to decentralize the power to the lowest level. Most of the problems that a common man faces are very basic and can be solved by the decision of the community at the lowest level. However, for that, people have to change their lifestyles and limit their lives to some extent. They have to become more communitarian if they want to be called democratic. They have to collectively share the burdens and privileges in society. They have to reject individualism in their social lives. But this appears practically impossible in the contemporary world because individualism is imperative to boost economic activities. We all want more and more freedom to get rid of all such values that hamper our economic growth. Everyone wants to have his own moral values and principles to spend his life because, this way, he can gain maximum benefit out of harsh competition of the capitalistic order.
Urbanization has made everyone apathetic and self-centered. Anonymity has increased so much that no one really wants to care what is going on in society. Big cities are the hub of progress, development, luxury, and vibrance but at the same time the center of crime, hate, envy, and detachment. People are so busy in their jobs and professional occupations that they do not want to waste their time by engaging themselves in societal issues. They have handed over these complications to the government. This gives the advantage to the ruling class. Now they are the ones who decide what should be the economic, social, legal and political system for us. The truth is that we, ourselves, do not want to spend our time making a contribution towards the collective welfare of society that is why there is no democracy for us. Now they are the decision-makers and our opinions do not matter. Ultimately only that happens which suits the minority of the ruling elite. And when they anticipate that the public is not going to accept something, they simply create a deceiving scenario and manipulate the innocent minds through mass propaganda. This democracy is just a hoax. It is a plutocracy or aristocracy under the guise of democracy. There is a persuading proposition in Marxism:
“Men make their own history, but not as they please. They do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered and transmitted from the past”
In Marxian Dialectic understanding of the history, material relations shape the social structure of society. Social thought is shaped by material forces and is transmitted from the capital owners to the lower strata of society. It decides the way people think about politics and freedom. Of course, it is the capitalist class that possess the material forces. Thus, for them, politics is a struggle for controlling the social processes so that these processes can be pushed in one direction to create a world of their choice. Freedom to workers, if it exists, implies the worker’s ability to decide what kind of society they want to live in — something totally against the wish of the ruling bourgeoisie. Capitalism is inherently a prohibiting system as it never allowed the masses to understand the real potential of their productive power.
And if you talk about freedom, it should be something that has a universal connotation. I mean the freedom of every individual living in a country must be the same. Practically it does not exist because money is such a powerful weapon that can buy you the freedom of others. A person having money is freer to take part in the elections. A wealthy person has more rights upon the environment, natural resources, and public property. They have more right to better education, health and they also enjoy more freedom of speech, movement, and expression. This phenomenon starts at the societal level and elevates up to the global level. See how richer nations are enjoying more freedom at the expense of exploiting the poor ones. See how the developing world depends on the affluent nations for everything.
