Governance By Consent

Sociocracy is the word coined by Auguste Comte the father of sociology for Democracy by Consent.

Democracy has a few characteristics:
1. It is rule by majority
2. It is rule by a victorious political party or a rule based on an ideology.
3. Democracy is representative Governance
4. People are the centre, source and dispensers of power. They do so by franchise as per law ordained.
5. Vox Populi has to be heard and acted upon. Vox Populi or the voice of the masses is generally represented by the media.
6. Justice for all, at the least cost and expeditiously administered.

I choose only these prominent characteristics to look into democracy as it is being practised in today's world.

The world "Majority" presumes the existence of a minority. If majority rules, the voice of the minority will remain a cry in the wilderness, though not necessarily, but in fact. The minority that is not listened to becomes sad, dejected, desperate, angry, rebellious and destructive.

Wherever, carried to the extreme, majority rule has produced terrorists and rioters. Take for example, the case of Hindu majority versus Muslim minority in India. In the state of Gujarat in India, the Hindu majority party Bharatya Janata Party was voted into power. The BJP Governement in Gujarat is most effective in administration, development and industry. It is perhaps one of the few states where hunger is not a political issue. However, the ideology that rules i.e. the ideology of the Hindutva (or Ramarajya) played havoc with the lives of a minority community and other minorities too live in fear. It is alleged that the law and order system sided with the majority and thus abetted in the muder and mayhem that sparked off after a fire in a Railway Car.

Democracy is rule by a Political Ideology or a Political Pary: The rule by religious texts will lead to fascism and rule by majority party will lead to democractic monarchy or dynastic rule as it is called in India. Indian National Congress had been the ruling party over half a century in India. By the time, the party had to move over and give the chair of authority to another parties, Congress itself had been inalienably identified with Nehru-Gandhi family. (Gandhi family name has nothing to do with Mahatma Gandhi, it is the Parsi surname of Indira Priyadharsani Nehru). Recently one of the youngest members of the family had the audacity to declare that "it (demolition of Babri Masjit) would not have happened had one of our family were in power". He had come to believe that only the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty could rule effectively. The very fact that while innumerable cadres of Congress had to work for years to get anywhere near the power-structure, he became over night the all important power centre. Democracy ultimately becomes political dynastic rule.

Representatives who cannot be recalled becomes a burden on the people who have elected them. It is not always that a statesman is created in democracy who will live for the people, rule by the law, and give an unsullied example to the generations to come of integral personality. The corrupt representatives will for example keep absenting themselves from attending legislative assemblies and in five years time will come back to the people with false promises. The people who have only a choice between the evil and the devil will have to finally settle for one or the other.

In today's democracy, people have no voice. The media which is meant to project the views and voices of the masses indulge in trivials. Majority of the time, after commercials in a TV newscaste is spent on entertainment and sports (as sports is not entertainment). We do not see an item of the day's telecaste called "Social and Developmental" where the works of NGOs and Individuals who work for the upliftment of the poorer sections will be displayed. If a child falls into a pit and if the event caught the attention of one media all the other media will spend days and night only on the event, even to the extent of hampering the rescue work. If a Cricket player or Film star did something different, the media will "follow the story all day" and will boast of bring the "latest" from the ground zero. An actress whom once people had worshipped said something like extra marital sex life the personal matter of an individual. All hell broke out, because the society in which she lived was ultra conservative (though they watch semi naked men and women dance and girate the whole day). The media made her life and the life of her growing child miserable by intruding into their private and personal life and property.

When decisions related to the lives and livelihood of the poorest of the poor are to be taken, they are taken by people who are not affected by the problem. Poverty is not a mere word that makes up a political slogan. But it is the very part of the poor man's daily life. The tragedy of today's democracy is that those who have hunger do not have the power to solve it, and those who have power do not have hunger. Some years ago before his party produced "India Shining" campaign, Atal Behari Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister of India declared that in 20 years time, India will be free of poverty. Just imagine that the lunch of the Prime Minister is not arranged that day. Now answer this question: What would be the priority of the ministerial staff of the Honourable PM? Of course his lunch. Why should a poor man wait for 20 years to have his food served?

Recently, in fact only a few days ago, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India sought and won a vote of confidence in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament. But the two-day session was a sight to behold. Acrimonious exchanges, personal attacks, accusations, general disorderly behaviour by the Members of Parliament, disobedience to the chair, sloganeering and sheer bafooning marked the proceedings of the House. An exasperated Speaker, an independant social thinker and parliamentarian of repute, Mr. Somanath Chatterjee said that he was ashamed of the behaviour and indiscipline of the memebers who sullied the image of the institution of the Parliament and the office of the Speaker. The world watched in horror and wondered whether they were honourable members of parliament of mere street children fighting over a rag. The fact that money changed hand for buying and selling members was very evident. That fact turned the Sanctum Sanctorum of Democracy, the sacred precincts of the Parliament, into a stable of horse trading.

I hold the view that it is time to take the power out of the hands of the politicians and give it back to the people whose it is legitimately.

Democracy as a representative governance has outlived its usefulness. It has turned into something sinister and essentially corrupt system.

As Auguste Comte foresaw a century ago and taught by Frank Lester Ward and practised by Gerarld Endenberg, Socialism is the future of governance. Type in the word Sociocracy in a search engine like Google and you are bound to strike a number of sites that will lead you to a good amount knowledge regarding sociocracy the rule by consent. Or visit our website www.ncnworld.org.

It is time, I repeat, to take power out of the undeserved hands of the politicians and people to resolve to take the reign of the country into their collective hands directly. Our social scientists and selfless statesmen and legal luminaries should sit together and plan a strategy for liberation of the people through sociocracy.