Pseudo Democracy in India

India is going for another election and as always Indian politicians and journalists would remind the Indians and the rest of the world about the strength and deep roots of democracy. It is true that in the 60 years of history of local rule (I would not say independent), democracy was never really threatened unlike several other countries of about same or lesser age.

Aristotle thought that in a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.
In India it is still true but in a bit convoluted manner. In India the majority of the poor votes can be easily purchased but the power of money or shear strength. So even when Aristotle is still right, in India, still the rich have the power. Yet another paradox in a truly Incredible country.

In a democratic process, all individuals are given a single and equal vote. For the success of democracy it is important that each voter realizes the worth of its own vote and the candidates who are seeking the public mandate respect the idea of individual vote and do not demean the vote by offering some monetary or personal favor in return.

In India, whether we accept it or not there none of the above holds on average. A randomly chosen citizen (irrespective of a his/her education or geographical location) would not be able to explain you the worth of his vote in an election comprising of several million voters. An average voter who can never understand the meaning of his one vote among the other several million votes is very likely to sell off his/her vote for small benefits. A large fraction of politicians exploit this ignorance and offer monetary or other kinds of benefits in return of a single vote.

In a slightly remote village (where most of the votes reside), the early birds get the worms i.e. the candidate who is the first to send some money and means of transport to take the votes to the polling station, is more likely to get the votes of that group of people. On top of this physically or economically strong candidates are more likely to get the votes, irrespective their agenda. To put it in other words, in India a candidate without money to buy votes or gain favor of a political party is unlikely to win in any election, no matter how strong development agenda that person has? It is not a hidden knowledge but it appears that as a country India accepts these non-democratic practices as a part of democracy.

So even after India has seen some 15 or so general elections and numerous by-elections, voters dont understand the worth of their vote and anyone can purchase votes and in turn the public mandate. Given this situation can we say that there exists democracy in India?

So long as individual voters do not understand the meaning of their vote, we cannot say that democracy is successful and is flourishing in India. Indian system of governance may be based on democracy but it is a very degenerated kind of democracy that they practice in India.

Should we blame the average voter for his/her ignorance about his vote? I do not think so. As country India has completely failed to educate its votes about the process of democracy and thus, there is no mutual respect between voter and vote and between candidates contesting in the election and the voters.

How do we educate a poor voter that his vote is worth more than some money or a small favor the politician has promised him? I dont know if there is an easy solution but unless that happens we cannot say that Indian rules are determined by a process of democracy. At best it is a pseudo-democracy.

Disclaimer: On a personal level I do not agree with the idea of democracy, because it gives equal vote to all the citizen. When citizens are not equal in their knowledge and understanding, they all should not have equal vote. More on this later...