When democracy falters

[Seshadri Sridharan]

When democracy falters

After Indian Independence, using the democratic process, a majority decision was taken to make Hindi the national language. Tens of millions of people were extremely displeased and angered by this decision, especially in South India. That led to chaos and bloodshed within the country, and the national unity was lost. This was clearly a case where a majority-based decision went against the well-being of the country, and failed to protect the interest of all. Thus, on sensitive issues, a democratic, majority decision sparks anger, alienation, and disunity.

Majority decision - sparked anger, alienation, & disunity

In certain Middle Eastern nations, the majority Muslims made Islam the national religion, thereby alienating those citizens who followed a different religion. This too led to infighting, socio-religious tensions, and disunity among the populace. Here again we see that a majority decision led to the fragmentation of society. Thus, on sensitive issues, a democratic, majority decision sparks anger, alienation, and disunity.

For decades Pakistan and Bangladesh were one nation. But majority leaders of Pakistan suppressed the mother tongue (Bengali) of Bangladesh. In addition, those Pakistani leaders imposed various rules and laws. The people of East Pakistan felt suffocated and in result broke away and formed their own nation, i.e. Bangladesh. This also shows how a majority vote by Pakistani leaders led to a divisive outcome. Thus, on sensitive issues, a democratic, majority decision sparks anger, alienation, and disunity.

And we have witnessed similar scenes play out around the globe where democratically elected leaders, who won the majority or plurality of the votes, have then gone on to act against the will and welfare of the common mass.

Why majority rule cannot work at a university

Here is another avenue of life where a democracy or majority rule cannot work: a college or university. At these institutions the student body numbers in the thousands or even tens of thousands, while the number of faculty and administrators is far, far less. If a majority-rule was applied, then students could grade their own assignments, write their own letters of recommendation, and change the rules according to their own liking – everything from academic requirements to alcohol and drug use to male-female relations etc. The institution would suffer on all fronts. That is why no academic college operates by majority rule. Rather, there is a distinct leadership, both in the classroom and in the administration. By that minority rule, the university develops and grows.

Status of democracy

We live in an era where democracy is seen as the ultimate form of leadership and governance. Here we examine important ways how democratic rule undermines unity in society.

Prout philosophy states, “There are occasions when majority decisions do not create unity in society because people are more or less divided on an issue. In such circumstances, the leaders should be very cautious when making their decisions, and take special care to safeguard the interests of everybody. In particular, they should select a course of action which does not harm the sentiments of any group. For example, suppose there are seven brothers in a joint family, and these brothers are divided on an issue. Four brothers may be on one side and three brothers on another. If the head of the family takes a decision based on the wishes of the majority, the family will be divided into two groups. Therefore, a decision should be taken which safeguards the interests of all the brothers.” (1)

Up till now, amongst the various political systems, democracy is the best of a bad lot. The ideal system will come in the future. Until that time, we must stick with democracy, despite its pitfalls and limitations. On certain occasions, the democratic approach works well, but in many circumstances the result of majority rule is harmful. There are many delicate issues that should not be decided by the democratic process because such majority decisions harm the sentiments of the people, thereby leading to disunity and division. That is the warning given by Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, the Propounder of Prout.
https://anandamargauniversal.blogspot.com/
Conclusion

The overall point which Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar has given is that the democratic approach does not bring social harmony if a majority decision is made on certain sensitive issues. On various occasions, the rule by majority is fine. Yet there remain numerous instances related with delicate topics where a majority decision alienates and angers many people, ultimately causing division and disunity. Care and caution are needed to build a unified society. According to the teachings of Prout, simply resorting to majority rule will not do.
 
In Him,
Prakash

~ In-depth study ~

Prout philosophy states:

"Now let us discuss some reforms to democracy. Democracy cannot succeed in countries where people are illiterate, immoral, or backward. Countries like England, the USA and France are suitable for democracy, but even these countries need to introduce some reforms.

First, legislators in the states and at the centre should be elected on the recommendations of the people at large. At the time of electing representatives the people should pay heed to their education, moral standard and sacrifice for the society etc. If the representatives are elected keeping in view these factors, they will not be guided by party interests but by collective interests. In their minds the interests of the entire human race and society will dominate, and not any class interests. They will be able to enact laws keeping in mind the problems of all and sundry, thereby accelerating the speed of social reconstruction. Their impartial service will bring happiness to all.

The voting rights should be vested in educated persons who have political consciousness and awareness of people’s problems. Age should not be a bar to voting right. If illiterate people are given voting rights there is the possibility of antisocial and incompetent representatives being elected.

To provide a fearless and independent ambience to the administration, the secretariat should be kept free from pressures from the cabinet. The cabinet should confine itself to legislation, the passage and passing of the budget, the implementation of its plans and policies, defense etc. The power of ministers should remain confined to the parliament and they should not poke their nose into the workings of the secretariat. The chief secretary should not be under the president or the prime minister but should act independently as the executive head. All the secretaries should work under the chief secretary. Free from cabinet pressures, every department will serve the people well.

In the present system the judiciary functions under a cabinet minister, and pressure from the minister may impair its independent functioning. To remove this defect and to ensure impartial justice, the judiciary should have the right to function independently. In no case should the chief justice be treated as inferior to the president or the prime minister. Only moralists and honest persons should be installed on the hallowed seat of justice. If people fail to keep this issue under their close scrutiny, injustice will take the place of justice.

[[Finally, for the proper utilization of the nation’s revenue and to ensure that every paisa is spent on building up the nation, it is extremely important that the audit branch as well be independent. The auditor general should be independent of the president. Only the independence of the auditor general can ensure that this branch will be able to fearlessly check the accounts of every other branch. Thus it should be a separate administrative branch of government, and independent of the party holding a majority.

All the four branches mentioned above should be given the scope to function independently. Thus there will be four compartments. No compartment will function under another.]]

But in such a situation there is still the possibility of injustice and exploitation. So to supervise or monitor the function of all these compartments, the benevolent dictatorship of the board of Sadvipras is required so that spirituality will reign supreme." - 17 July 1961, Bettiah, Bihar (2)