Someone once wrote - democracy is like three sheep and a wolf sitting at a table. The wolf always wins - it's the law of nature.

The term "collective will" is an oxymoron. Will is an asertion of independent, individual opinion. When we try to collectivise it, we invoke herding instincts in people. When there's so called collective will, it usually involves a wolf rallying the people towards a cause - much like marketing a new product, or launching a new movie.

I think what democracy does provide though is checks and balances. It sets an upper limit to the abuse of governmental power (although the current situation in the US defies this logic).

@Shekhar:We all know that the system is inadequate ,the Government seldom follows the "collective will" of the people but the main issue here I think is the absence of "collective will" itself. That is an illusive concept in a democracy as vast as India's

kamlesh : I agree that in a country as diverse as India there can be no collective will. So are national elections simply local elections put into a lottery pot, and the national winners comelut of that ? Probably - given that different states have different number of a seats in Parliament - well, u know the election process in India and even the US is mathematics as much as it is collective will

However I am more concerned when u imply that that perhaps that illiterate people do not understand what they are voting for. When I was filming Bandit Queen I was surprised at the depth of knowledge of illiterate people - at least on local issues - and as u know someone as illiterate as Phoolan Devi went on the be a member of Parliament. Which I would say is a triumph of democracy in a way.

But i do agree, is there something inherrently wrong with the democratic process in India ? Does our Constitution impose impractical solutions ? But on the other Gandi certainly seems to have garnered (despite dissentions) the collectiev will of the people ?
shekhar

Shekhar,

you have raised a very pertinent point . But I am afraid that no matter the pearls of wisdom that might be voiced here, finally it will prove that this is only another area added to a long list . A list where the system wins hands down and the common man once again feels impotent to respond to a question such as 'what should be done'. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.. Lord Acton. Doing away with this phenomenon is like wishing for the moon. If it is a mind shift one is aiming for , then on a more philosophical note what we should envision is a leadership ,irrespective of whether its a democracy , presidents rule, which is steeped in doing its duty ,conforming to the laws of dharma and karma.

All is not lost....yet

Hi Shekhar,

You could be opening the door for dramatic change.

I would say yes we are responsible and no they do not represent the collective will of the people. I know this to be true because I have never had a representative inquire as to what I thought, what I wanted, or how I wanted him to vote on a matter. So I have always wondered how you can claim to represent me if you do not know my thoughts. Now I could write a letter but do they have a way to tally or quantify it so they can add it up and measure it? I would say not because they would need to maintain a database for each issue and then input each constituent vote or wish and as far as I know these are not in place.

The current government systems were designed before telephones existed; we now have the technology to support a totally new government system throughout the world where each individual voice carries weight and can be measured.

I do not think that “collective will” is an oxymoron. Any issue that a collective will could not be determined for does not belong to the government. Perhaps if we look at the meaning of collective this way it will be clearer.

Collective Will is the intent to make a decision or policy that serves to benefit the many rather than the interests of a few. Or said another way no decision is made to benefit the few to the detriment of the many.

Here is another way to look at it, do we favor the “will” of a corporation or industry over the will of the general population?

The other premise behind this approach is that it is easy to corrupt one person and even ten. It is much harder to corrupt or tempt 100 or 1,000. If a number of people are involved in a decision it is more apt to be balanced then if one biased individual were to make it.

We need a concise method to demonstrate measure and authenticate the will of the people without distortion by the media or special interests.

This by proxy will serve as the command infrastructure for individuals and representatives in government to serve the collective and beneficial will of the people of the republic.

Representatives will then be forced to publicly do the will of the people or reject it.

To replace arbitrary opinion polls that may be undertaken by special interests.

To create a voice that carries weight and legal force upon which representatives will act to carry out. A voice that cannot be ignored, distorted misinterpreted.

This will be the final check and balance on the operation of government and render any small group or special interest incapable of usurping the power of the common people or exercising dominion over them

Protection most notably from the courts will be in place to protect minority groups from majority religious or arbitrary belief systems and fabricated Illusionary dogmas that try to restrict or suppress the pursuit of happiness.

So why not have a direct vote on issues?

Richard,

what you are suggesting is Utopian.. But impractical my friend.. Have you ever visited India?

Shekhar,
Any system that is organized and functions has a collective will. The more organized a society, the stronger will be its collective will.

However, what makes us believe that the collective will of a people cannot be misled (or manipulated)?
If an individual human can be tricked into something, so can an entire society.

If the information that reaches the individual components of a system is filtered and misrepresented, the collective consciousness of any system will undoubtedly err - its very organ of perception has been deluded.

You have to realize - the community bonding in some prominent western nations is extremely low - the average person receives his information through "organized" media (kind of like organized religion, hm?). Westerners value privacy to manic levels, whereas the acverage Indian gets a lot of his knowledge of Indian situations from other people. Word of mouth that is, to a great extent (if not completely), free from organized media. Even our organized media is not as much of a behemoth that western media is. There is a huge proliferation of micro-media which is independent midned.
Hence, to delude the collective perception of our populace by media manipulation is extremely difficult - as evidenced by political entities who have launched glitzy media programs that were were well conceptualized, yet did nothing to prevent the average Indian from voting against them.
Our diversity & fragmentation may be the very source of our resistance to mass-manipulation. It may be possible to manipulate a single community in India (as we can see everyday in the newspapers) - yet to manipulate each and every diverse market segment is nightmarish - next to impossible.

So, what is the strength of the Indian society? It lies in our community bonding and the fact that we talk more to our relatives and neighbours (and THEIR relatives and neighbours) than the average westerner. And strangely, our strength also lies in our diversity.

The western cult of self-isolation under the name of privacy is precisely what allows the collective consciousness of prominent western nations to be influenced by what the media feeds to them. There is zero input coming in from non-organized-media channels.

It is difficult for such a society resist the manipulation of its consciousness by anyone who can control the media.
How do people vote in the US? Republican or Democrat! Anyone will tell you that if you want to trick someone - offer them limited choices. This makes them feel that they have a choice, while in reality their freedom of choice has been curtailed right at the root. Akin to the car salesman who says - "Sir, do you prefer the red car or the blue car?".
Where are the minority political parties in the US that represent the African Americans? Or the Hispanics? Or the poor? (sorry, read underprivileged. Poor people are only in third-world countries). How come there are so many limited choices available to th American voter, whereas in fact there are significant number of minorities in the US?

In conclusion, here's a simple way to bypass all democratic hurdles and still make a society a dictatorship in spite of it being officially a democracy -
1. Create a culture in which people are isolated from each other.
2. Control their means of getting information and news.
3. Constantly reinforce (via the media) how the people are free to choose
4. Offer limited choices of elected representatives, by behind-the-scenes manipulation

Thats all for now -
Regards
- Atracus

shekhar,
u hv raised a valid point here... First things first...... there can be nothing like a 'collective will'. Its a self-contradictory phrase. This is something which our leaders hv drilled into our minds. But to be fair, there are 2 sides to this issue...

first n foremost for a democracy to function peacefully, there hv to be many compromises because a government has to respect everyones views... n since in most cases in a democracy , a wide spectrum of ppl reside, there are bound to be multiple viewpoints. So, the onus is on the government to give the 'will' of ppl a proper direction and use it to the country's advantage. Now whether the american ppl want war or not is another thing, but everyun agrees that they want peace. And, bush's government view has alwayz been tht in order to hv this 'peace' these 'wars' are inevitable.

So, does this mean that ppl hv no say in a democracy? ofcourse not.... I always believe that life is nothing but a series of consequences of the choices u make.... Americans made the choice of appointing bush as president, n bush has stuck on his agenda..... so its not the president who has wavered from his stance but its the public... Dont mistake me as a 'war-supporter' but thats the cold hard fact.... Bush never said that he was the 21st century Gandhi or something.... Do i need to remind my american frnds that "an apple never falls far from its tree"? If we expected it to fall near the 'wisdom tree', then was it our fault or was it apple's? ur guess is as good as mine....

I don't understand how there can be such a thing as "collective will" in a national context. Democratic processes elicit a "majoritarian" view.

So when Bush wages war on Iraq, one could arguably extend the responsibility (in a limited way) of that decision to all those who voted for Bush. How can one hold all those who did not vote for him, responsible?

By definition, a democratic process tries to arrive as close as possible to a "collective will". Even if this process was perfect, the collective will needs to represent only 51%.

Add to this, a lack of awareness on the part of the electorate due to illiteracy, misleading information, etc. etc.... for all you know, the so called collective will may only represent a marginal percentage of the subjects.

dear atracus, what an interesting point u have raised. That in India is different for the reason we are fragmented, therefore mass manipulation is not possible. Agreed. So there is no such thing as collective will nationally. It is just local collective will put together in a jigsaw.

U are saying that is a good thing. While understanding your point I do know that India would not have won it's independance was it not for a surge of collective Will - how did that happen ?

Interesting to talk later about the benefits and problems of a fragmnented society

shekhar

I guess India is no different from the US in terms of elections as was seen from the electoral campaining, as was evident in the previous elections where BJP used "India shining" slogan to attract votes. The party being wiped out of power is another issue altogether. Even today, electoral results are truly decided by the popular mandate of the people who come from the lower sections of the society. So the political parties design their campaign to attract them. The lower sections are gullible, vote for a candidate who as u said "peaks at the wrong time". Now where is democracy justified? Just switch on to a popular music channel, and u will understand the attitude of the youth in our country. A kid who idolises american culture doesnt know who the President of our country is. As long as there is this disparity and indifference among the educated class, and as long as the lower sections of the society are left out, nothing can come out of a democratic system, how much ever progress is achieved on a global level.

Shekhar,

To put it in a nutshell, the point you raised about the surge of independence was also due to the reasons I had mentioned earlier.i.e. leaders who abided by the laws of dharma and karma Gandhi,Bose,SardarPatel, martyrs like Bhagat Singh. They were heroes then and now.We need heroes to emulate. We are a nation where emotion plays a large role in our decision making proces. Dynastic rule Like the Gandhis is unheard of in any other democracy. In the absence of a leader who can capture the imagination of the masses, apathy is the order of the day. It is a proven fact that illiteracy or not we cannot fool the masses today. They have an uncanny sense of deciphering the good from the bad whether it is a film or a leader. Right now there is so much of decadence in the political scenario that pople have lost their will to mirror a collective will.Its more like a volcano which has chosen to be dormant ,since circumstances are not conducive. For the sake of hypothesis, imagine a leader lke say Deepak coming to the fore. someone whom people can trust implicitly, someone who is above manipulation and deceit, then you can be sure there will be a decisive vote. If you have been following the last few election results you must have realised that it was always a coalition that came to power. No single party garnered majority of the votes. I think this itself speaks volumes. Where does the question Of collective will arise?

As for plebiscite , as somebody suggested, he obviously was not aware that India still follows archaic laws in The Indian Penal Code , Civil as well, which have been prevalent since the British rule.If in 58 years we have not been able to update those, then seeking a mandate on every legislation is unimaginable.The only present alternative seems to be that each responsible citizen realises that if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. What action do we as educated responsible citizens take? Despite all the hullabaloo less than Fifty percent have even bothered to vote.!If one is talking of a sweeping change in mindset it has to be preceded by a miracle first as far as leadership goes.If it always going to be a question of choosing between the devil and the black sea then what good can arm-chair philosophy do?

Have you ever considered a Political career? You'd get my vote. Give it a thought.

Kaveetaa: Regarding "dynastic rule," consider the Kennedys in America, and many consider the Bushs, back to George Sr.'s father, Senator Prescott Bush, to be a "blue-blood" dynasty.

Just a thought for you, as the Kennedys came closest to living for ideals--some documentary shows are now indicating JFK and Bobby Kennedy asked MLK Jr, off-the-record, to march on Washington for civil rights. Dave

Shekhar,
To answer you - we must not equate collective consciousness with collective will. A person with a mind does not necessarily have direction, or will power.
Similarly, a society may have its collective consciousness, yet have no will to speak of.

About our independence - what you say is undeniable - it definitely would not have been possible without a huge spike in the collective will, which was hitherto entrapped in a disempowered consciousness.
What we saw was essentially a will rising in the collective consciousness. (naturally, there was a ALSO a rise of coherence of the collective consciousness at the same time)

We can call this unity - instead of the term "collective will."

About our fragmentation being good -
Indeed, no-one can say that fragmentation is entirely a strength or a weakness.

Often, what is a strength is also a weakness, at the same time.

Everything is only a characteristic - in some contexts, the characteristic may be good/strength, in other contexts it may be a bad/weakness.

(Consider our traditional post-medieval Indian attitude that had strong taboos against sex. This view, while probably being an unenlightened view, effectively prevented India from turning into a global sex center in its days of imperialism- induced poverty/famines. It could have very easily turned into that and continued being so, if we did not have those strong cultural conditionings against sex - we had/have huge poverty that could have easily led to such a downfall. But our anti-sex conditioning saved India from going on this path. So, like our fragmentation has some benefits on some angles, our stupid taboos have saved us in critical situations, too. Today, such taboos are probably a liability for a healthy society).

In summation - over the centuries, we Indians have probably learnt as a people that we need to unite on SOME subjects, as opposed to our earlier attitude when the rajahs were being cleverly eliminated by the British, one by one, (using their intelligence networks of English governesses, doctors, priests, etc), while the neighbouring rajahs were gloating at the downfall of rival rajahs.

So we have learnt something down the centuries, and probably we will learn more.

I would not be mistaken if I said that the collective consciousness of India and the growth of this collective consciousness cannot be stopped now.
What is amazing is that this collective consciousness extends beyond the geographical borders. Desis bond everywhere in the world.

Perhaps, we may also become a nation without borders (or a nation within nations), like the Judaic people, in a couple of centuries?

The Q remains - do we have the will, and the direction, even though we have a consciousness?

kaveeta : what kind of leader do u think India needs now ? Shekhar

Controversy! Debate! Oh how I love it! Life is truly an uninterrupted class room.

I read Richard's remarks in the other post and they certainly had me thinking. It raised some doubts in me. According to my thinking people have the right to elect those whom they trust will manage and administer to their collective benefit. They elect those they feel are in tune with their kind of thinking as to what is best for all. Thereafter, they cannot be held totally responsible for the actions of the elected reps. That is why I use the word 'trust'. For the next few years they offer suggestions and sit in judgment and are again given an opportunity to evaluate what’s on offer. They can at best be guilty of misjudgment but cannot be held responsible as such.

I think that is a drawback of the system of governance we have chosen for ourselves. The system cannot be perfect and it is up to us to try and get it as close to that as we can. We gave ourselves a constitution and we also gave ourselves the right to amend it as we learn. That flexibility - if not misused - is also our strength. So though I have different views I believe we are democratic.

To-day, unfortunately, we feel that it is impossible for us individually to make the drastic corrections that are needed. The blame too is entirely ours; we slept too long and let the rot set in.

Fortunately things are improving and I feel we will improve and in fact are improving. There is far more awareness, brought on to a large extent by our now open contempt for politicians and their ways. It is making a difference. We have let the system deteriorate under our very noses for a few decades now. We simply cannot expect it to be set right in a few years. If it takes years and years to build something it takes even longer to rebuild it without collapsing it completely.

The one thing we (in India) simply have to insist on is education for all. Too much money has gone down the drain in this endeavour with disgusting results. It is time we realised that it is in the interest of the politicians to keep the population illiterate, they thrive on it. This in no way implies disrespect for the intelligence of rural India. The average villager is extremely intelligent and practical. Illiteracy has kept him disadvantaged. Once he has access to knowledge and prevailing technology he will outshine his urban counterparts.

If each of us, or our families as a whole, took just one child we see in our neighbourhood and spend two hours a week teaching them to read and write we will have made a beginning. It works - in fact we will be brightening our own future

Shekhar,

Our youth today . or let us say the majority of the electoral list is between the ages of 18-40 according to a survey. They have only heard of the leaders I had mentioned earlier, with the exception of perhaps Jawaharlal Nehru. After him there has been a steady decline of values and honesty in public life. Indira Gandhi too had to face more than her fair share of scandals and dubious accusations. It resulted in a complete loss of faith, mingled with a sense of hopelessness in not being able to see a light at the end of the tunnel . So let us say that for the last 40 yrs(nehru passed awawy in 1965)our nation has been governed mainly by prayers .

In such a scenario , if you are asking me to put on Merlin the Magicians cap and conjure up a leader,Then ...O.k. Let me give full vent to my imagination to save my nation. He would have to have the charm of Kennedy, the credibility Of Deepak, The fighting spirit of Bose, The vision of Bill Gates, The consistency of Mandela,the political integrity of Nehru,and the statesmanship and oratory skills of Swami Vivekananda. We need all of these qualities in a single individual to extricate us from the mess we are in. It is such a pity that India with her immense resources , has not been able to create a niche for herself in the world as she deserves because she is entrusted in the hands of a few corrupt individuals who are insincere and short sighted.Politics has become a dirty word in india and relegated to those who can play those games and the hunt for a leader in a population of billions has become an exercise in wishful thinking.

I could not furnish you with a name . It is a pity.

dara, and u think technology will bridge the great educcation divide ? Knowing that the big problem in India is that teachers rarely attend claasrooms in rural areas. Teacherless classrooms ? But that will give the state huge powers of manipulation.

And education ? Young minds can be taught whatever they like. Then the collective opinion will be that of the state

The right to education ? or the right to information ?

do u think then the internet is the great leveller ?

shekhar

Shekhar - I think it was Winston Churchill who once famously said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

I'm so glad you brought up this topic. It boggles my mind that the west goes on and on harping about democracy as if they have reached the pinnacle of civilization.

To put my newly acquired vocabulary to use - it's basically swamp marketing.

Let us use our collective will to figure out a better solution. Perhaps something along the lines of ebay and American Idol where your track record is on display for all to see and your popularity is determined by your performance.

Btw, Socrates was very derisive of the democratic method and his critique is interesting - rule by a mob where the most important members of society are elected by the ill-informed, inexperienced and disinterested.

Yes, I believe that a population is responsible for the action/inaction of its government, I also believe that we are individually and collectively responsible for the state of the world as it is. The world is being created by us every second according to our will, individually and collectively, and this is true if we know it or not.

We are now living in a world that reflects our past collective way of thinking, our old values and beliefs, in accurate detail. As large groups of people are presently starting to change their values, there seems to be a gap between "my will" and "the world out there", it feels as if the state of the world can't possibly have anything to do with "me". But there is no gap. What we've got is what we've created and what we're going to get in the future is what we are creating right now. If our leaders no longer represent our values, we have to change the leaders. If we don't change the leaders, we are still exercising our will, choosing inertia or fear instead of the new values we have started to become aware of.

The responsibility is always with each and every one of us, that's what gives us the power to change any situation.

Dave,

Let me clarify why the gandhis is dynastic.It began with jawaharlal Nehru, He groomed his daughter Indira gandhi. so far so good. She in her lifetime groomed her son Sanjay Gandhi who died while she was in power. after her demise her older son who was a pilot Rajiv gandhi, and who played no role in politics was voted into power. Wait .its not over. sanjays widow , whose only claim to fame was just that, sanjays widow, won an election too. Now then Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated and his widow an Italian Sonia gandhi is President of the Congress and Virtual Head. She holds tremendous sway over Indian population and the oldest party In India the Congress. She is grooming her two chidren Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka to take on her mantle soon... Does this Compare by any standards with Bush or Kennedy family??We Indians are an emotional lot you see.)

Kaveeta,
I have my serious doubts as to whether politics was ever NOT a dirty game. Even if you read the most ancient treatises on politics - all of them talk about exactly the same machiavellian techniques.
Perhaps what is closer to the truth is that, from time to time politicians find a good figurehead, who may actually be noble and a great guy.
Yet - does this noble figurehead survive at the top without being supported by his colleagues who still indulge in machiavellian strategies?

We have ample examples of people with integrity and charisma and noble character who fail utterly at politics, and are even maligned in the process.

I find it hard to believe that there was no politics (even filthy dirty politics) going on under the noses of all the individuals that you spoke about, and that they were even aware of it at some levels.
Can politics be ever clean? I think not.
Forget the freedom struggle, and the crop of a freedom struggle. The kind of people who rise to politics from a freedom struggle are people who have already staked their lives on principles, with no assurance of anything - its not been a career option for them.
In normal politics you are not going to get heroes whose integrity has been tempered and proven before they got to a public post.

"Shekhar,dara, and u think technology will bridge the great educcation divide ? Knowing that the big problem in India is that teachers rarely attend claasrooms in rural areas. Teacherless classrooms ? But that will give the state huge powers of manipulation.

And education ? Young minds can be taught whatever they like. Then the collective opinion will be that of the state"

Sure I'm aware of what things are like at present. That is why I said that huge amounts have been wasted on education. That is my point. In fact i'm sure if we total the amount of money already thrown away on it, we should have preactically eradicated illiteracy.What we are doing is not my idea of education.
I mean an education similar to ours. Are we not better off for it? Hasn't it helped us get where we are? Why shouldn't everyone enjoy the same benefit?

The whole system needs to be radically changed. Is it difficult? Of course it is and extremely difficult at that - is it impossible? Certainly not. How have corporates, even where their plants are located in rural areas, managed to provide reasonably good educational facilities for their labour and staff? Aren't those children better prepared for the future than they would otherwise have been? The govt. has far more resources, it doesn't have the will or doesn't want to. Either way it has to be pushed into doing it.

As for technology bridging the educational divide, I see no reason why technology available today in various fields will not benefit those who are made aware of it capable of utilising it.

"The right to education ? or the right to information?"

Interestingly I was going to mention the right to information. Didn't because to make use of RTI you first need to read and write. Incidentally I feel that this one legislation is already showing results.

"do u think then the internet is the great leveller ?"

To me it's extremely informative and a great communicator.

Now my question to you.:) ......do you feel that education is no solution?

Altracus,

Okay, let us keep aside the freedom struggle and its heroes. Let us consider only those who have considered it a career option. Where is the COMMITTMENT, DEDICATION, SINCERITY, SINGLE MINDED PURPOSE, INTEGRITY, which is the hallmark of a professional in any field? If the present crop had atleast treated politics and their role in it as a career, things would still have been under control. Its bad enough that they have sacrificed their principles on the altar of a career, but can you therefore absolve them of their misdeeds? Is not it paramount for them to put the nation second atleast if not first? I have first hand experience of the workings of this section. They are mercenaries to the core and that is their only religion. Machiavellian tactics had as its basis a victory for a cause ,not a victory for personal benefit.

'In normal politics you are not going to get heroes whose integrity has been tempereed and proven before they got a public post.' So one cannot expect integrity before and after they get the post since it is a career option it is a given that they will be pressurised into surrendering to machiavellian forces.In other words we have to give up on the idea of hoping for an upright citizen in or out of politics.

One is not idealizing at the cost of practicality. It may seem difficult but not impossible to have at the helm of affairs someone who can find the right balance and still go onto doing what is in the best interest of the country.

I would like to share a quote posted this morning on a website that I visit daily just for the inspirational quote. I thought it fitting.

"Your government is the byproduct of the vibration of the masses. A war is the byproduct of the vibration of the masses. In other words, this is not a war that your government has waged against your will. This is a war that has grown vibrationally from the vibration of the masses."
Expressed by Abraham-Hicks

'collective will'?
Becareful what you wish for.

The apparent weaknesses of the system of democracy are less intrinsic to democracy than it is to the ignorance of the polity.

Those who have the best knowledge and understanding of the systems that individual and social events are in a far better position to navigate today's increasingly interdependent and accelerating reality.

The more ignorant the people are, the more the inttent of democracy can be defeated. So let's not worry as much about the failures of the system of democracy, let us worry about increasing the chances that it can work the way it potentially can.

Dave, the Kennedys asked MLK to delay the march on Washington because they were concerned about the safety of the people, and the effectiveness of the campaign. IMO, JFK was able to sincerely quest for his ideals because he had the power, both politically and financially to do so. But that's an aside.

I am totally ignorant of the ins and outs of politics in India, so I'll just read and learn here. As far as the US, it's impossible to even talk about "collective will" when less than have the people ever bother to cast a vote, let alone contact a representative. They may (or may not) even have an opinion. However, to me, those who don't vote represent the American equivalent of the illiterate in India.

Political campaigns in the States ARE marketing campaigns, each of which represents a differing point of view. The one with the majority of votes wins, so, in effect, the minority's opinions are de facto not followed.

Once in office, every politician goes through a whole set of bargaining -- a vote on THIS in exchange for a vote on THAT. To achieve true consensus on every issue is simply impossible.

And I do agree with Bob, that acting on what's determined to be a "collective will" is a very dangerous proposition. People will surprise you.

Addressing the current situation in the States, we have a president who is islolated, arrogant and narcissistic. He not only doesn't listen to the people, he practically denies that that people are there. The only thing we can do, with the system of government we have, is to vote for people who oppose him in other branches of government. If we don't do that, we're screwed.

Love,
Ann

The apparent weaknesses of the system of democracy are less intrinsic to democracy than it is to the ignorance of the public.

Those who have the best knowledge and understanding of the systems that individual and social events are in a far better position to navigate and manipulate today's increasingly interdependent and accelerating reality.

The more ignorant more people are, the more the intent of democracy can be defeated. So let's not worry as much about the failures of the system of democracy as we worry about increasing the chances that it can work the way it potentially can.

The responsibility for improving the system falls upon us, the people who are among the least ignorant, and therefore in a position to understand and harness the psycho-social forces flowing among us.

It is we who have to organize creatively within the freedoms that democracy affords us, to help uplift all the rest of us to the same level of knowledge and understanding, while we keep improving our own.

Dear Shekhar,

You´ve nailed the..right..on the ...! ;)
Great one!

The legal aswer would be a referandum,
but..

Well.., sad that the ´system´ does not work in that way...

Nevertheless,

Love, Passion! and let the will of the people be the sovereign, instead of the Ego´s of the few...

First I would put more restrictions on the power of the president, it is too much power for one person. Secondly, I would have, at the very least double the representaion in Washington. We need to get rid of the American "winner take all" system of elections. American democracy could learn alot, from say the German system. Which is, if a political party gets more than 5% of the vote they get that many corresponding seats in the congress. This system takes the power away from an indivdual politician and puts it in the hands of philosophy.

Hi All,

The nature of government of any brand including democracy is to grow. The more that it grows the less it becomes responsive to the needs of its citizens. When the US Constitution was originally crafted, it was designed to vastly limit the power of big government because the authors of the Consitution believed that the much smaller States were much better suited to deal with the needs of their people.

However, government...particularly of the Federal kind here in the US, has grown to a bloated beast. Interestingly, the growth comes mostly from well intentioned people that ask for the Fed's to do more and more and more. They have gladly done so...but certainly at the expense of freedom as now no one in the US has anywhere to go to escape policies that they don't support. Originally, the States had great latitude in making laws; they could prohibit abortion and if you thought that was unjust you could move to another State that supported it. Or if you lived in a State that had a non-existent welfare system and you believed that your tax money should go to support a welfare system, then you could relocate to that place. It was meant to be an enormous experiment, with each state representing the desires of its constituents. With the massive explosion of the federal government here, there is no where left to go if you don't agree with government policy and the Federal government is so removed from the individual that it is not responsive to its citizens needs.

The Federal government now has a criminal code (which it was never meant to have) and it bullies the states into supporting things that it's people may not want by threatening to cut off funding of roads (interestingly the Federal government gets to cut off money that belongs to the people of the States, not the other way around). The Federal government has the IRS which has its own courts and prisons and is not answerable to the sames rights and rules of other courts.

Government is best when limited and small and most abusive when large.

Peace,
Scott.

The collective will be the most unlikely word to be used to actions of any democratically elected govt.
Firstly no democratic govt. in this earth can claim to be true representative of the people.
Secondly, in most of the cases, the Govt, if formed by a fair election also, never bother to think about the electorate except before the next election. We have seen how Tony Blair govt. tried to hoodwink the public about the WMD of Saddam Hussain. To be fair with Tony Blair, his is not the isolated one. Without exception all democratically elected govts give scant respect for collective will.
Thirdly, are these govts true representative of the people? In the fairest of democracies also, the govt. is formed by simple majority of voters. If you see, the govt. is formed by a group of representatives who have won by majority votes, are not necessarily elected by more than 50% of the voters. And how many of the population goes to vote? Maybe 60-70%. Hence statistically they are only representative of 35-40% of the population.
But the larger issue is kind of representation, kind of democracy we are talking about.
Let’s talk about India. Here also first let’s talk about the constituencies where elections are held without the (mis)use of 3 Ms: Money, Muscle and Manipulation of Govt. Machinery. In most of these constituencies the elections are fought on the issues of caste, tribe, religion. Why only that? Let’s start with the selection process? What are the criteria for the selection of a candidate by any political party? List of qualifications should read out like 1) heir prince / princes? 2) Belongs to the majority religion / sect / caste / sub caste of the constituency? 3) Follower of which group leader? 4) How close to the personal secretary of the supreme leader? 5) How many times in a day he/she touches the supreme leader’s feet or declares his/her allegiance to the supreme leader?
Don’t believe me? Just look at the list of names of these representatives.
And leave aside the use of 3 Ms in the election. Illeterecy, ignorance, poverty, etc. etc.
But let’s not only blame the politicians. We, the people are also equally to be blamed. We, the so called upper class, do not go to vote, the balance of the people, while voting, give priority to caste / religion / party.
How can you expect the action of the Govt. formed by these leaders will represent the collective will of the citizen?

It's really interesting to read about different perceptions about what kind of government is best, and worst. All I can say, with so many disagreements and so many "I am right" philosophies, "Thank God, people conformed to such an idea of government before the world quadrupled in population"! It would be very sad to try and see what kind of governments would be formed in this "day and age", from scratch! It would be chaos from hell, I believe!

At least we now have the opportunity to tweak out what doesn't work and make positive changes. However, gargling the "I'm right" and the "blame-game" venoms is choking and suffocating. I wonder when people in general will be considered, instead of one's personal agenda??

Shekhar, population at large is mainly responsible for the actions/inactions of the govt. If the American public hadn't given a blank check to this administration, we could have prevented this war. I don't agree with the argument that they gave because of 9/11. Afgan war is the one that is "needed" due to 9/11. Not Iraq war. Though Bush administration is mainly responsible for the war, why did Americans overwhelmingly support him then? Why didn't they ask the administration the same questions they are asking now? In short, why did they give a blank check? Not only that, even after it was evident that he was not truthful, he was re-elected. I would say that citizens at large are mainly responsible for the actions of the govt.

This is not the case of just US alone. When India went into Kargil war 6 months after they got the information about Pakistani occupation, nobody questioned why it was delayed. Everyone was in the patriotic mood like how Americans were during Iraq war. No one questioned why the then govt. didn't act immediately and why they put the soldiers to fight when the weather conditions were at the worst. No one questioned about the timing. They even won another election immediately using the war. This is another example of people being responsible for the actions of govt.

Pres. Bush was hired to fight and that is what he is doing, just what the American people wanted. We may not like the results of war, but this was our desire as a country - the majority. The pain and suffering is more than most can bear, but so was 9/11.

One day, there will be peace and it will come about when we ALL want it ... it's that simiple. So again, I say, let's pray (meditate) and of course, continue sharing our hearts.

" The people have the ultimate responsibility to ensure the individuals in their government are well managed and carry out the collective and beneficial will of the people they represent"

What a great statement. UNFORTUNATELY how do we ensure that the individuals in our government are well managed and carry out the collective and beneficial will of the people they represent? We have a democratic system to vote in our representation based upon different parties. Yet no representative truly represents me on all my concerns. Worse still neither candidate may be someone I believe represents me. For example this past election I didn't really want any of the presidential candidates as my president. When I voted, I didn't vote for one candidate, I voted against the other. Frankly I feel I lost either way.

I believe we have the most freedoms of any people on earth. I also believe like every other nation we have truly divergent views within our society. Trying to satisfy them all seems to be an impossible task. Add terrorism, economic uncertainty, and fear of death for oneself or loved ones and all of a sudden primal survival behaviors can be seen all over the place. How do you reason with fear?

I very much believe if you want a solution, be the solution. I believe peace starts within. Conciousness requires more than a few carrying the message. But how do we move past the fear to be able to weave peace into all our existences? How do we stop the largest economic income of the world - the sale of weapons? We move forward on one side, yet backwards on another. Cause and effect are not always clear - there are too many interconnections. A few people with radical actions decide to act and it will affect the world. How do we intervene quickly enough to stop the destruction? Or will consciousness intervene when we as a world are at the brink of destruction, will consciousness do a quantum leap and make the difference?

I wish I had a clear answer - I come back to the same thought. Be the solution and believe that as the solution it will generate enough consciousness co-creating with others that consciousness takes a quantum leap forward. Believe that now is the time when we as a people understand that the only way to win with war is not to play. That is how war is learned no more. Finally I trust that my consciousness keeps me safe and pray that I can be a spark for others.

BTW: I voted for the other guy :-D, but I was obviously in the minority!

Dear Shekhar Kapur,

Really, the best person to be talking to about globalization and economics and its impact on our culture is Renowned Professor Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia university. Is there some way he could be invited to IntentBlog to share his ideas with us??

Regards,

Deshpande

I would prefer to read the views of a respected person like professor Jagdish Bhagwati rather than the rants of a leftist extremist like Nandita Das on IntentBlog.

@Deshpande: What an interesting way of inviting !! I guess Mr Kapur n Mr Chopra have started this forum to discuss things with people coming from all ideologies. So the people who "prefer" to discuss a particular philosophy here with learned people should

Deshpande: I also noticed your preference for reading "the views of a respected.....vs. the rants of a leftist extremist....," and am "left" with the question of what is stopping you from going to google.com, typing in the name of your favorite Columbia University Economic's professor(s) and reading away?

After all, who is it that is making you read any of the posts on the Intentblog?

Maybe the best way to invite Professor Jagdish Bahgwati to comment on the Intentblog would be for you to send Jagdish a letter requesting this professor join the ongoing discussions on the Intentblog--who knows--the Professor may even find Nandita's to be a wonderful voice-of-compassionate-realism-and-sanity!!!

Now wouldn't that be a "miserable 'google-like' failure" to snub our arrogant and intellectual holier-than-thou noses at!!!! Just an idea. Dave

Deshpande - If you have any criticism on the substance of what Nandita is saying please to share your own counter substance. It's of no use (and is rather offensive) to just brand labels on to people.

There is such great wisdom and intelligence here from everyone. I am really busy at the moment but plan to respond to some.

Extremes are always a contradiction, what we look for is where they meet in the middle in balance and harmony to become One.

From one context something may be true; from another it may be false. One must be sure to define the context so that it is understood. There is usually some validity to every point that is made. This is important to understand in conflict resolution or disagreement, sometimes it is only the context that is different and not the truth itself.