FADING INK 
Lal Chakraborty

A¡L¡nc£u¡

H¢fËm, 2003

p§Q£fœ


April 02, 2003  

DEMOCRACY REDEFINED 

The coalition of the willing has embarked on a noble mission - to deliver democracy to the millions of poor souls in Iraq, who have never known anything but dictatorship and tyranny. And many have applauded such effort of spreading goodness all around the world. We remain skeptical. We feel it is a good time for reflection and introspection. We feel it is time to revisit the basic definition of democracy.
 
Long ago patrons of democracy defined it as a state "by the people, of the people, for the people". And it has been so for hundreds of years.
 
In Australia, a democratic state, 71% do not support sending troops to Iraq. Yet they do. In Britain, a Mori poll for The Sun newspaper, found that 63% of respondents oppose war and Britain is the strongest ally of this carnage. When 80% of Spaniards reject war even with U.N. backing, Spain becomes a hawk in this war. In Japan opinion polls show that roughly 80% of Japanese are opposed to the war and they are part of this coalition. In Turkey, a democratic state, up to 94% of the people are against this war. Yet after initial rejection, they are forced to open up their airspace.
 
All these countries failed to represent the will of their own people.
 
By virtue of the old definition, all these states are democracies. The leadership comprises of the people, they have been voted in power by the people and they are acting in the sole interest for those that are governed.
 
And this trend of democracies rejecting the will of its own people marks something far more sinister than a war and a few thousand innocent victims. It marks the death of democracy as envisioned by its forefathers. These states, that we call democracies, have all successfully suppressed the voice of the majority. In this sense, they are not much different from the dictatorship we are about to dispose of in Iraq.
 
The old definition of democracy "by the people, of the people, for the people", specifies how a democracy should be created and run. It is more a technical definition and fails to capture the true spirit of democracy. The old definition makes us believe that democracy is only about votes. We are made to believe that when we execute our choice every four years, we create a democracy - a misconception that has been fed to us over the years. In reality, we just vote to choose who the next dictator will be and hand him over our powers for the interim period.
 
It is time to redefine democracy. A government that is "by the people, of the people, for the people" is not enough. Further it must also ensure a state where "WILL OF THE MAJORITY IS UPHELD AND RIGHTS OF THE MINORITIES ARE RESPECTED".
 
States, where individuals and parties can manipulate the existing machinery to suppress the will of the people, are non-democratic in nature. Maintaining a façade of election does not make them any more democratic than tyrannical regimes of this world.
 
It is time to state that the coalition partners have strayed from the path of democracy. Australia, Britain, Spain, Japan and Turkey are no more democratic.
 
The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield agenda is stealing democracy from all over the world. It respects neither rights of minorities nor the will of the majority. It makes a demon out of France and Germany because the elected representatives respected the will of its people. It tried to buy off Turkish leaders who were bent on respecting the will of the governed.
 
As planes bomb to give democracy to Iraq, already it is lost in several countries. For many, a few birds in hand looks far more precious than the lone one in the far away deserts of Iraq. Uncle Sam begs to differ.
 
We call on all democratic institutions and individuals to recognize the slow disintegration of this cornerstone of civilization that we know as democracy. We call on all people to adapt this new definition of democracy and measure a country with this new standard.
 
And please Mr. Bush, when we give democracy to Iraqis, let it be one where "will of the majority is upheld and rights of the minorities are respected". Not one, that is just "by the people, of the people, for the people". We have suffered the pitfalls of the narrow definition enough.