Many score and many years ago, Ab Lincoln talked of a democracy “Of the People, By the People and For the People”. What he proposed was a utopian society where every man was equal. Lemme analyse how further wrong could he not have been...
You have the right to elect the leaders but no right to govern their actions. What if the majority government unilaterally enacts a legislation (with all suitable amendments and clauses) heavily inclined against the common populace?
One fine morning, ToI first page: In lieu of the 900th amendment to the “Winners of Lottery Act, 2008”, the ruling government reserves the right to the largest amount in any lottery. Any wealth collected vide 900th amendment to the “Winners of Lottery Act, 2008” will be termed legal. This amendment will supersede all other contradictory articles and amendments in the constitution.
What right does the ordinary man have to prevent the government from doing this?
Defence by the government, “The ruling has been made by a popular government. The voter has the right to NOT-CHOOSE the government the next time it goes to vote if he unsatisfied by the government and its bodies.”
Will someone tell me how many times does a common man win a lottery? What happens to the wealth accumulated by the ruling government in the period till the next government comes to power? Can it not be used to further influence people?
Well, to appear just and not unilateral, the government gives the voter the option of impeachment described below:
Brilliant. The government is responsive. The government is so open. The government is so just.
Second look: What if 6.99/8 of population is in favour of the motion? Condition 1 satisfied. What about condition 2? To further compound the problem, what if 1/16 of the population is not in town to vote? That’s not good enough. What if 1/32 of the population is direct stakeholder against the motion? That leaves only further 1/32 of the population to actually abstain from the voting to get it declared invalid. What a democracy – 87% of the population v/s 2% of population and the 87% is considered invalid because the 2% are absent from voting!!!
Which government will modify this legislation, a legislation so inclined in the favour of the ruling government; a legislation that empowers the government to commit any crime and ask for solid proof (which again is ratified as acceptable by the same government!!! Y am I not surprised...)?
Probably, George Orwell got it more right when he said, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. And when the mistakes of super equals are brought to fore, they retaliate in a manner which makes the other equals feel these super equals were better off ignorant of the mistakes (Putting it mildly against “crimes”). That these super equals will do anything to protect their exalted status is the essence of modern democracy.
The democracy is “By the people” when the government is formed, “Of the people (the neo-super-equals)” during its existence and “For the people (the super equals)” in its functioning. For the rest of junta, kat raha hai...
P.S.: Any Law (Civil, industrial or watever else) students/professionals, please correct me if I've overlooked any provsion(s) in Indian constitution which is in direct contradiction to above. There is a possibility that the whole article is incorrect, in which case, please provide me links to suitable literature.
P.S2.: The limit on quorum is 10% as known to me. The specific example of the impeachment procedure is a known violation of the rule used to prove a point