Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Democracy in practice

gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 11:43:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know how much of this is being broadcasted abroad, but I see this as the perfect example of democracy in practice. This is the basic timeline of the incident, or rather of the phenomenon. You're going to read a lot of this in the times to come, This is like history in making.

Jan 30: People take out march against corruption in over 60 cities to demand an effective anti-graft Lokpal bill. Anna Hazare, Kiran Bedi, Swami Agnivesh and lawyer Prashant Bhushan were among the key participants in the rally in Delhi.

Feb 26 : Anna Hazare calls press conference, announces that he would go on fast unto death from April 5 if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did not take a decision on including civil society in drafting the Lokpal Bill. Expresses frustration on several letters written to PMO on the issue being ignored.

Feb 27 : Rally taken out from Jantar Mantar to Ramlila ground under banner of Bharat Swabhiman, for stringent Lokpal Bill and to bring back black money stashed in foreign banks.

March 3: Prime minister writes to Anna Hazare, invites him for discussion.

March 7: Anna Hazare meets Prime Minister Manmohan Singh along with Kiran Bedi, Swami Aginvesh, Prashant Bhushan, Shanti Bhushan.

March 8 : Prime minister sets up sub-committee to look into the Lokpal Bill, members include ministers A.K. Antony, M. Veerappa Moily, Kapil Sibal and Sharad Pawar.

March 28: Activists meeting with sub-committee remains inconclusive, Anna Hazare says he will go on fast as scheduled.

April 4 : Anna Hazare confirms fast from April 5, calls upon the nation to join in. Prime minister expresses his "deep disappointment" at the decision.

April 5: Anna Hazare, along with supporters pays tribute to Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat, marches from India Gate to Jantar Mantar where he starts fast. Supporters join the protest from 400 cities, more than 5,000 gather at Jantar Mantar. Main opposition BJP extends support, Congress calls it premature.

April 6: Fast enters second day, government members say they are not adverse to civil society's suggestion. Sharad Pawar withdraws from a sub-committee following verbal attack from the activists.

April 7: Fast enters third day; activists meet sub-committee members, meeting remains inconclusive. Movement gathers momentum, film personalities, politicians extend support. Candle light march taken out in Delhi.

April 8 : Anna Hazare announces he will end fast Saturday morning after government agrees to notify formation of a panel, with 50 percent civil society members, to draft the anti-corruption law and introduce it in the monsoon session of parliament.

April 9 : Anna Hazare ends fast around 11 a.m. after government issues notification. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says the Lokpal Bill will be introduced in the monsoon session of parliament.

The day that started with Anna's plans for Part-2 of his campaign for the Jan Lokpal bill, ended with the police's arrest of Anna and the subsequent dramatic decision by the Government to release him.

Following is the sequence of events through the day.

6 AM: The stage was all set for the face off between Team Anna Hazare and the government.
The mood was tense at Mayur Vihar in East Delhi where Anna Hazare had set up his camp that something was about to happen.

7 AM: A three member police team knocked on Flat No. 280 at Supreme Apartments. "You have to come with us" - is what Anna was told. Within minutes, his key aides, also with him, were led out of the building

"I have been arrested but the fight against corruption must go on," said Anna Hazare in his Youtube message.

"This is a repeat of the emergency era," said Kiran Bedi from the bus in which she was taken away.

8 AM: By this time, news of Anna's detention spread through the city. Supporters thronged the streets and the places where Anna Hazare was to conduct his fast.

10 AM: Hundreds were detained and were taken to Chhatrasal Stadium in North Delhi, while Anna and his key aides were taken to the Civil Lines in Delhi. The voices of protest became louder.

1 PM: By this time, the question on every one's lips was - where is Anna?
"Where is Anna…we also want to join him," said protestors outside Chhatrasal Stadium.

3:30 PM: Anna was taken to the DCP West's office.
By evening Anna Hazare and seven supporters were sent to Tihar Jail No. 4. But a few hours later, Shanti Bhushan and Kiran Bedi were released.
Their arrests ignited mass protests in several cities - from Chennai to Patna to Mumbai to Lucknow to Delhi.

Later, orders for Anna's release were sent to Tihar Jail, but he refused to come out of the jail, saying he would be arrested again.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 12:53:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 11:43:51 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
I can't see this happening in ANY other form of government.

This does not seem like democracy in practice. Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism. This actually sounds like breakdown of democracy, where a person who's not at all selected by the public is pushing the buttons.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:08:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism.
So democracy is necessarily totalitarian. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:10:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 12:53:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 11:43:51 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
I can't see this happening in ANY other form of government.

This does not seem like democracy in practice. Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism. This actually sounds like breakdown of democracy, where a person who's not at all selected by the public is pushing the buttons.

The person IS the public. He's getting massive support from the public because they agree with him. Democracy is 'rule by people, for the people'. So, even if the government does not wish to pass a certain law, for example, it has to, because the majority demands.

How will a democracy be devoid of activism? Activism is the core of democracy.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:11:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:08:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism.
So democracy is necessarily totalitarian. ^_^

Devoid as in unnecessary. not as in "not allowed".
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:14:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:10:29 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 12:53:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 11:43:51 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
I can't see this happening in ANY other form of government.

This does not seem like democracy in practice. Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism. This actually sounds like breakdown of democracy, where a person who's not at all selected by the public is pushing the buttons.

The person IS the public. He's getting massive support from the public because they agree with him. Democracy is 'rule by people, for the people'. So, even if the government does not wish to pass a certain law, for example, it has to, because the majority demands.

How will a democracy be devoid of activism? Activism is the core of democracy.

If the democracy was working properly, would there be a need for activism? By saying activism is the core of democracy, are you saying that activists run things in democracy by definition?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:14:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:11:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:08:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism.
So democracy is necessarily totalitarian. ^_^

Devoid as in unnecessary. not as in "not allowed".
Devoid has never meant "unnecessary." Furthermore, I bet the minority doesn't think so.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:18:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:14:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:11:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:08:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism.
So democracy is necessarily totalitarian. ^_^

Devoid as in unnecessary. not as in "not allowed".
Devoid has never meant "unnecessary." Furthermore, I bet the minority doesn't think so.

Well, even in totalitarianism, activism happens. It just gets suppressed. so you cannot say totalitarianism is devoid of activism.

Since we are discussing about democracy here, which is an actually existing system, it represents the best chance for minorities (excluding all other non-existent systems which you may have in mind)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:40:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:14:00 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:10:29 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 12:53:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 11:43:51 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
I can't see this happening in ANY other form of government.

This does not seem like democracy in practice. Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism. This actually sounds like breakdown of democracy, where a person who's not at all selected by the public is pushing the buttons.

The person IS the public. He's getting massive support from the public because they agree with him. Democracy is 'rule by people, for the people'. So, even if the government does not wish to pass a certain law, for example, it has to, because the majority demands.

How will a democracy be devoid of activism? Activism is the core of democracy.

If the democracy was working properly, would there be a need for activism? By saying activism is the core of democracy, are you saying that activists run things in democracy by definition?

Democracy works because of people's participation in it. Activists are the core of democracy. It prevents democracy from becoming all preciding.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:52:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:40:14 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:14:00 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:10:29 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 12:53:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 11:43:51 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
I can't see this happening in ANY other form of government.

This does not seem like democracy in practice. Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism. This actually sounds like breakdown of democracy, where a person who's not at all selected by the public is pushing the buttons.

The person IS the public. He's getting massive support from the public because they agree with him. Democracy is 'rule by people, for the people'. So, even if the government does not wish to pass a certain law, for example, it has to, because the majority demands.

How will a democracy be devoid of activism? Activism is the core of democracy.

If the democracy was working properly, would there be a need for activism? By saying activism is the core of democracy, are you saying that activists run things in democracy by definition?

Democracy works because of people's participation in it. Activists are the core of democracy. It prevents democracy from becoming all preciding.

What is people's participation? Protesting?

Also, how does democracy become all presiding? What does that even mean?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 2:09:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:52:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:40:14 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:14:00 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:10:29 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 12:53:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 11:43:51 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
I can't see this happening in ANY other form of government.

This does not seem like democracy in practice. Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism. This actually sounds like breakdown of democracy, where a person who's not at all selected by the public is pushing the buttons.

The person IS the public. He's getting massive support from the public because they agree with him. Democracy is 'rule by people, for the people'. So, even if the government does not wish to pass a certain law, for example, it has to, because the majority demands.

How will a democracy be devoid of activism? Activism is the core of democracy.

If the democracy was working properly, would there be a need for activism? By saying activism is the core of democracy, are you saying that activists run things in democracy by definition?

Democracy works because of people's participation in it. Activists are the core of democracy. It prevents democracy from becoming all preciding.

What is people's participation? Protesting?

Of course. If government tries to run out of course, protesting against it is people's participation. It's their direct say in the running of their country. The power of protesting against the decisions, and having that power protected, is what makes a democracy powerful and the closest to a fair system of governance, in my opinion.

In this instance, I guess the thing that makes it stand out is that government is doing all it can to oppose him, but the intricate working of the system is preventing it and it's failing. Badly.

Also, how does democracy become all presiding? What does that even mean?

It meant that democracy becoming totalitarian, in a way. When the government tries to undermine the people's role and arbitrarily tries to make decisions adversely affecting everyone except itself.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 2:55:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:18:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:14:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:11:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:08:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism.
So democracy is necessarily totalitarian. ^_^

Devoid as in unnecessary. not as in "not allowed".
Devoid has never meant "unnecessary." Furthermore, I bet the minority doesn't think so.

Well, even in totalitarianism, activism happens. It just gets suppressed. so you cannot say totalitarianism is devoid of activism.
You're denying the antecedent. Also, suppression means that something is stopped from happening.


Since we are discussing about democracy here, which is an actually existing system
Define, and then we'll see if it exists.

it represents the best chance for minorities (excluding all other non-existent systems which you may have in mind)
Best chance to do what? Not anything relevant here I'll bet. But, again, define.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 9:15:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 2:09:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:52:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:40:14 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:14:00 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:10:29 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 12:53:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 11:43:51 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
I can't see this happening in ANY other form of government.

This does not seem like democracy in practice. Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism. This actually sounds like breakdown of democracy, where a person who's not at all selected by the public is pushing the buttons.

The person IS the public. He's getting massive support from the public because they agree with him. Democracy is 'rule by people, for the people'. So, even if the government does not wish to pass a certain law, for example, it has to, because the majority demands.

How will a democracy be devoid of activism? Activism is the core of democracy.

If the democracy was working properly, would there be a need for activism? By saying activism is the core of democracy, are you saying that activists run things in democracy by definition?

Democracy works because of people's participation in it. Activists are the core of democracy. It prevents democracy from becoming all preciding.

What is people's participation? Protesting?

Of course. If government tries to run out of course, protesting against it is people's participation. It's their direct say in the running of their country. The power of protesting against the decisions, and having that power protected, is what makes a democracy powerful and the closest to a fair system of governance, in my opinion.

You see, people are already participating in democracy, when they elect their representatives. That is their direct say in the running of the country. Protesting is not.

Protesting just means that those representatives are not doing their jobs properly, meaning that the people have elected a representative that's not representing them. Hence, the failure in democracy here.

Protests happen in every system. The Jasmine revolution, the French revolution and every single revolution in the past were protests. Protesting is not limited to democracy.

In this instance, I guess the thing that makes it stand out is that government is doing all it can to oppose him, but the intricate working of the system is preventing it and it's failing. Badly.


Well, in Egypt also we saw the "government" do everything in its power to oppose the protests. Which intricacy in that system prevented the opposition?

Also, how does democracy become all presiding? What does that even mean?

It meant that democracy becoming totalitarian, in a way. When the government tries to undermine the people's role and arbitrarily tries to make decisions adversely affecting everyone except itself.

Okay. But this is not limited to democracy. Totalitarian regimes have been overthrown as well.

The basic point I'm making is, protests happen when the ruling powers don't listen to the peoples' demands.

Since democracy is set up in a way that the ruling powers are selected by the people, where is the need to protest? It's not like the ruling powers were divinely mandated or anything.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 9:19:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 2:55:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:18:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:14:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:11:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:08:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Democracy in practice would be devoid of activism.
So democracy is necessarily totalitarian. ^_^

Devoid as in unnecessary. not as in "not allowed".
Devoid has never meant "unnecessary." Furthermore, I bet the minority doesn't think so.

Well, even in totalitarianism, activism happens. It just gets suppressed. so you cannot say totalitarianism is devoid of activism.
You're denying the antecedent. Also, suppression means that something is stopped from happening.


Since we are discussing about democracy here, which is an actually existing system
Define, and then we'll see if it exists.

it represents the best chance for minorities (excluding all other non-existent systems which you may have in mind)
Best chance to do what? Not anything relevant here I'll bet. But, again, define.

Right you are. I forgot that democracy, as defined, does not actually exist anywhere!

But the point I was initially making, regarding activism in democracy, was that since the ruling powers have been selected by the people themselves, the fact that those ruling powers are not listening to the people means democracy has failed. If they actually do listen to the people, there would hardly be any need for activism.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 11:59:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
But the point I was initially making, regarding activism in democracy, was that since the ruling powers have been selected by the people themselves,
Ah, the incoherent definition.

the fact that those ruling powers are not listening to the people means democracy has failed. If they actually do listen to the people, there would hardly be any need for activism.
It's not "The people" that elects, it's the majority. It's not "The people" that engages in activism, it's a minority.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 12:05:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 11:59:22 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But the point I was initially making, regarding activism in democracy, was that since the ruling powers have been selected by the people themselves,
Ah, the incoherent definition.

the fact that those ruling powers are not listening to the people means democracy has failed. If they actually do listen to the people, there would hardly be any need for activism.
It's not "The people" that elects, it's the majority. It's not "The people" that engages in activism, it's a minority.

Not true all the time. Some of the people who are protesting have voted for the party in power.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 12:12:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The class "people who protest" is a minority regardless of it containing members of a majority in other respects. (And containing members of such a majority is unusual, often a sign of stupidity though of course not always).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 12:23:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 12:12:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The class "people who protest" is a minority regardless of it containing members of a majority in other respects. (And containing members of such a majority is unusual, often a sign of stupidity though of course not always).

Well, the minority is being allowed to protest, isn't it? Would this be possible under totalitarianism?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.