[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

I am not taking "political sides", just taking policies into perspective. Better to do something about it than just talking about it. I said this Govt against ALL previous ones (including the ones by same political party too).

Thanks, it wasn't clear in your previous post and I misread your point. My apologies.

The poverty in India have to be eradicated, and we should stop romanticizing about the poor

Couldn't agree more. Poverty needs to be eradicated, but as long as it exists, it needs to be accounted for instead of being dismissed as irrelevant because it doesn't fit the in-vogue narrative.

The poor have been everybody's pawns far too long and always end up at the short end of the stick. That needs to change, no arguments there.

No, I'm not sitting around talking about it expecting someone else to do something. I'm doing my relatively small bit too.

Go and visit any village and live there for some days......

What makes you presume I have no exposure to rural life and I'm just an armchair pseudo-expert out of touch with ground realities?

you would be surprised by the malaise and prejudices.... communities have....

That's true for humans everywhere, and being a villager/urbanite has nothing to do with it.

Look around at the way urbanites treat each other, the horrors perpetrated on innocent people just because they belong to some piece of land or speak its language (but have nothing to do with the issue at hand).

All humans are instinctive by nature, eduction and wisdom teaches them how to control their base instincts in a civilized society. It's not a rural vs urban thing. It's human vs human.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by sachinpk

We are actually apeing the British democracy which is Parliamentary Democracy and pretty much follows all the British format. They have a queen, we have a President. Where as the USA has a totally different way of doing things. Their President is much more powerful, where as our Presidents for quite some times were considered to be rubber stamps. So the way US counts the votes, and how India (and UK) counts the votes are different.

I was replying to a post asking for a decent sized "democracy" with majority voters electing the ruler. US is a democracy (though not similar to ours) and has a president usually elected by majority voters.

It is not just in presidential system that majority for rulers is a given, in parliamentary system with proportional representation too majority for ruling alliance is necessary. (eg: Germany, Israel, Turkey). It is only in our "first past the post" system, it is rarer.

Originally Posted by sachinpk

Here it is better to infer that 'popular mandate' = majority of the voters electing candidates from a specific party (which means they have faith in that party and has given them the mandate to rule). Individually how much vote %-age these candidates got, or what is their winning margin then becomes immaterial.

You are wrong here. Majority of the voters did not elect candidtes from a single party (current alliance got only 38% votes). Infact India has never had majority voters electing rulers. It is just plurality of voters.

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

In a multi party democracy, there can't be an absolute people'e mandate for a single party. Let's just agree that the current Govt got more "Ayes" than "nayes" and thus have constitutional as well as "major voter consensus" for them.

Germany, Israel, Turkey etc are all multi-party democracies and they all require majority support for ruling alliances to form govt. Like I told, it is only in our "first past the post" system, majority for rulers is rare. Also none of the govts, current or previous, has got more "Ayes" than "Nayes". For eg: current alliance- ayes 38%, nayes-62%.


I am not questioning the legitimacy of the current or past govts. But I dont like the govts, current and past, claiming majority support for their policies.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Poverty needs to be eradicated, but as long as it exists, it needs to be accounted for instead of being dismissed as irrelevant becaude it doesn't fit the in-vogue narrative.

The poor have been everybody's pawns far too long and always end up at the short end of the stick. That needs to change, no arguments there.

No, I'm not sitting round talking about it expecting someone else to do something. I'm doing my relatively small bit too.



What makes you presume I have no exposure to rural life and I'm just an armchair pseudo-expert out of touch with ground realities?

Maybe it was not coming clearly in my post, I never intended to judge you. It was a phrase to be read in continuity (go to any village....."you" as third person, a generalization) not directed to you.

Regarding your point on poor need to be accounted for - I agree 100%. And Govt did tried to do exactly that. Over the course of their 2.5 years rule - bank accounts for all poor, linking it to adhar, direct subsidy transfer, cheap insurance cover, accidental cover and pension cover for poor, besides campaign for constructing and using toilets and clean India. Govt not only formulated policies, they directed (and even pushed) banks to follow through. Crores of new bank accounts were opened. One can't see the remonetization policy in isolation. Without the prior policy drives, this would not have been even possible to think (probably that's why it was never done on this scale in India, despite Indra Gandhi Govt being advised to do so).

You take 100 steps, people with oppose you on one or the other steps you have taken. You do nothing and you are doing exactly as expected in India.

[deerhunter]

Another thing I noticed in this debate is that whenever someone opposes some policies of a govt, a few presume that the person opposing the policies is against the government and is a supporter of some other political ideology. It is not always true. Many here dont have any political leanings.

So no need to list the achievements or negligence of any govt to prove the point.

Someone opposing a particular policy or action is not necessarily anti-government

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

....You take 100 steps, people with oppose you on one or the other steps you have taken. You do nothing and you are doing exactly as expected in India.

Like I said earlier on in this thread, I hope whoever starts something has the fortitude to stick with it and not drop it halfway.

That being said, (dis)agreeing with either or all of 'what' and 'why' and 'how' of something does not, should not and must not preclude the right to question and debate either of those aspects, for anything anywhere.

The freedom to ask questions is the unnamed pillar of a democracy, it's what separates us from totalitarianism, and I find it concerning how many people would love to take that away just because someone disagrees with their version of something.

[JLS]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

All the US presidential elections, except 5, in the past 2 centuries had majority votes for winners. Almost all other presidential systems too has similar majority votes for winners. eg: France. Both France and US are bulwarks of democracy.
.

I would like to make two points:
1. I think you missed 'ALL eligible voters' from my post.
Can you please suggest whether majority popular vote was really a majority considering total eligible votes OR only considering the people who voted.

2. Whenever somebody argued for precedential democracy in India, left parties, feudalistic parties et al most vociferously shouted it down, because they can thrive only in fractured mandate, which gives them a leverage to disrupt

Originally Posted by deerhunter

It is only in parliamentary system, the majority for the winners is rare. India has never had a govt with majority votes. The fact that India never had a majority govt doesnt mean that govt can claim majority support for their policies, because they simply dont have majority support.

So in parliamentary system, should government stop taking new initiatives and continue with status quo?

Originally Posted by deerhunter

You couldnt be more wrong. The word 'popular mandate' is actually used by governments to give legitimacy to their policies. All our PMs till date has (mis)used that word to claim majority popular support for their policies. The recent example is demonetisation.

What I want to say is this - plan and implement whatever policy the govt feels appropriate, but never claim majority support for their policies.

PS: Since all PMs till now have misused the word 'political mandate', you can be rest assured that I dont intend to "attack and defame government of different political ideology", because then I will be attacking and defaming the entire political spectrum.

I am not into passing judgment here and would not term you wrong or right - you are entitled to have your opinion.
But for the fact, I heard for the first time after 2014 that current government does not have a 'popular mandate'. I follow Indian politics and commentary since 1977 - a la emergency time. All earlier governments whether with fractured or clear majority did not have to face this comment. So much for the objectivity of left oriented media houses.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Like I said earlier on in this thread, I hope whoever starts something has the fortitude to stick with it and not drop it halfway.

That being said, (dis)agreeing with either or all of 'what' and 'why' and 'how' of something does not, should not and must not preclude the right to question and debate either of those aspects, for anything anywhere.

The freedom to ask questions is the unnamed pillar of a democracy, it's what separates us from totalitarianism, and I find it concerning how many people would love to take that away just because someone disagrees with their version of something.

On first part - yes. If this Govt does not stick to it's deeds that they have started, we would not hesitate even a bit to boot them out. Isn't it?

Asking questions is necessary, but some questions (not necessarily from you) being asked here does not seek the answers, just trying to bash, troll and strike it down. Besides, asking questions when something seems bad to is justified, equally justified it is to expect honest appraisal of good things done, isn't it.

P.S. I didn't voted for the incumbent Govt in 2014 polls, so I can fairly be assumed as a neutral observer.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

....Asking questions is necessary, but some questions (not necessarily from you) being asked here does not seek the answers, just trying to bash, troll and strike it down

It's not an ideal world, so there will always be anomalies. But that can't be used as a basis to shut down contrarian opinions.

If everything being ideal was a criteria, nothing would ever get done, including demonetisation.

asking questions when something seems bad to is justified, equally justified it is to expect honest appraisal of good things done, isn't it.

Judgment in reality is a subjective thing (one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that jazz), and while it seems nice on paper to classify things as 'seemingly' good or bad, it implies giving someone (person or entity) the power to decide what's allowed to be classified as good/bad. That's a slippery slope that doesn't end in a good place. History is replete with examples.

I didn't voted for the incumbent Govt in 2014 polls, so I can fairly be assumed as a neutral observer.

Even if you did, that doesn't make an ounce of a difference in my eyes to your right to have an opinion about their actions. I may or may not (dis)agree with the opinion itself, which of course is my right reciprocal to yours.

[JLS]

Originally Posted by deerhunter

Another thing I noticed in this debate is that whenever someone opposes some policies of a govt, a few presume that the person opposing the policies is against the government and is a supporter of some other political ideology. It is not always true. Many here dont have any political leanings.

So no need to list the achievements or negligence of any govt to prove the point.

Someone opposing a particular policy or action is not necessarily anti-government

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Like I said earlier on in this thread, I hope whoever starts something has the fortitude to stick with it and not drop it halfway.

That being said, (dis)agreeing with either or all of 'what' and 'why' and 'how' of something does not, should not and must not preclude the right to question and debate either of those aspects, for anything anywhere.

The freedom to ask questions is the unnamed pillar of a democracy, it's what separates us from totalitarianism, and I find it concerning how many people would love to take that away just because someone disagrees with their version of something.

I agree, we can voice our disagreement with government polices and it is a fair and valid to question.
However I feel challenged when someone pushes down disagreement to my throat and curbs my right to voice agreement.


On the other hand, on the argument that government has changed the goal posts mid way. At first I found this argument funny, and after further thoughts a dangerous one.
Do we expect government to fight against corrupt crooks like a plain simple gentleman or like an astute chess player?
Do we expect government to set some rigid procedures and stick with them for long time so that corrupt crooks can find ways to navigate against them?
Do we expect government to fight against terrorist only after fully publishing the plan and troop movement etc, so that terrorists can set traps and foil the plan?
Please think again - this is the folly of all so called liberal thinkers - expecting government to play by pre-set rules and allowing free hand to crooks and terrorists.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by JLS

I would like to make two points:
1. I think you missed 'ALL eligible voters' from my post.
Can you please suggest whether majority popular vote was really a majority considering total eligible votes OR only considering the people who voted.

Majority popular vote means majority of the votes. It doesnt mean all eligible voters.

But what I was trying to say was, there are several countries in the world where a popular mandate is a necessity to rule.

Originally Posted by JLS

2. Whenever somebody argued for precedential democracy in India, left parties, feudalistic parties et al most vociferously shouted it down, because they can thrive only in fractured mandate, which gives them a leverage to disrupt.

Everything is not black or white. There are several other reasons for not opting presidential system. The most important being too much power in the hands of a single person, which can lead to dictatorship. The countries that got independence after India has proved our constitution makers right.

Also in every presidential system, there will be a law making body(eg: Congress in the US) which is elected by the people. So "left parties and feudalistic parties" will not gain or lose anything much if it was parliamentary or presidential.

Link
These are the excerpts from our constituent assembly on the debate of presidential vs parliamentary systems. Please go through it if you have the time.

Originally Posted by JLS

So in parliamentary system, should government stop taking new initiatives and continue with status quo?

Governments can do whatever they are constitutionally allowed to do. But never claim majority support for any of their policies.

Originally Posted by JLS

I am not into passing judgment here and would not term you wrong or right - you are entitled to have your opinion.
But for the fact, I heard for first time after 2014 that current government does not have a 'popular mandate'. I follow Indian politics and commentary since 1977 - a la emergency time. All earlier governments whether with fractured or clear majority did not have to face this comment. So much for the objectivity of left oriented media houses.

I have been telling that the word "popular mandate" was being misused for ages. I dont know about other commentators, but I have told the same about previous govts too, not just this one.

Has any of the media houses challeneged this govt regarding popular mandate? I have not heard any doing that. I may be wrong.

[diyguy]

Do we have the "referendum" in our constitution so that general public can weigh in on matters that have wide ranging impact? why is it that this is not being used, if there is such a provision? I also know it cannot probably be applied in this specific case of the demonetization drive but any other such policies that impact the true majority of the population, it should go for a referendum in my opinion. An ex could be the Jallikattu ban in Tamilnadu.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by JLS

....
However I feel challenged when someone pushes down disagreement to my throat and curbs my right to voice agreement.

Ever wondered the person you disagree with probably feels the same way? It works both ways.

Demand your right to have an opinion without being judged or forced to give it up, but afford the same to everyone else in return. Everyone, not just those you agree with or aren't bothered by.

this is the folly of all so called liberal thinkers - expecting government to play by pre-set rules and allowing free hand to crooks and terrorists.

You're picking a subset of people you disagree with, and broad-brushing everyone who may subscribe to that term. Liberal does not mean anti-government, just because 'some' liberal-minded vocal and popular folk disagree with government.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by diyguy

Do we have the "referendum" in our constitution so that general public can weigh in on matters that have wide ranging impact? why is it that this is not being used, if there is such a provision? I also know it cannot probably be applied in this specific case of the demonetization drive but any other such policies that impact the true majority of the population, it should go for a referendum in my opinion. An ex could be the Jallikattu ban in Tamilnadu.

There are many issues in which majority doesnt mean anything. For eg: Since India is a Hindu majority state, what if in one referendum, majority of the voters decide to change India into a Hindu religious republic with no freedom for other religions? That will be a disaster, right? Same is the case for many issues.

Originally Posted by JLS

On the other hand, on the argument that government has changed the goal posts mid way. At first I found this argument funny, and after further thoughts a dangerous one.
Do we expect government to fight against corrupt crooks like a plain simple gentleman or like an astute chess player?
Do we expect government to set some rigid procedures and stick with them for long time so that corrupt crooks can find ways to navigate against them?
Do we expect government to fight against terrorist only after fully publishing the plan and troop movement etc, so that terrorists can set traps and foil the plan?
Please think again - this is the folly of all so called liberal thinkers - expecting government to play by pre-set rules and allowing free hand to crooks and terrorists.

You are right regarding the freedom government should have to change policies for the betterment of the people.

But in the case of demonetisation, it doesnt look so. It appears as if the govt initially thought this will wipe out all the black money. Once it became clear that it cannot, they started changing goals. Meanwhile the lowest sections of the society bore the brunt of its negative effects. Add to all this, there were much easier ways to clean up black money (but requiring immense political will), which the govt chose to ignore. Now the aim is to show that there were no alternatives to demonetisation and it is a great success. There is no transparency in anything they say about demonetisation.

The people who implemented this were real amateurs. Look at PM's November 8 speech and look at the implementation. Half of what he said didnot occur according to plan. People supported this initially, thinking that the govt will catch evaders. But not even a single politician was raided by the tax authorities, not even that of opposition parties.

PM Speech

4. After depositing your money in your account, you can draw it when you need it.

5. Keeping in mind the supply of new notes, in the first few days, there will be a limit of ten thousand rupees per day and twenty thousand rupees per week. This limit will be increased in the coming days.

9. There may be some who, for some reason, are not able to deposit their old five hundred or thousand rupee notes by 30th December 2016.

10. They can go to specified offices of the Reserve Bank of India up to 31st March 2017 and deposit the notes after submitting a declaration form.

[binand]

Originally Posted by diyguy

Do we have the "referendum" in our constitution

Referendum is a very bad idea, and the option was wisely left out of our constitution. Decisions on "matters that have wide ranging impact" needs to be taken by subject matter and policy experts, after adequate analysis and consultations.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

It appears as if the govt initially thought this will wipe out all the black money. Once it became clear that it cannot, they started changing goals.

Even on the 50th day (29/12), the PM was clear that the objective of the demonetisation effort was to tackle black money, corruption and other anti-national activities, exactly what he said on 8/11. Please read this interview:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/n.../1/845224.html

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by JLS

Do we expect government to fight against corrupt crooks like a plain simple gentleman or like an astute chess player?
Do we expect government to set some rigid procedures and stick with them for long time so that corrupt crooks can find ways to navigate against them?
Do we expect government to fight against terrorist only after fully publishing the plan and troop movement etc, so that terrorists can set traps and foil the plan?
Please think again - this is the folly of all so called liberal thinkers - expecting government to play by pre-set rules and allowing free hand to crooks and terrorists.

At first I found this argument funny, and after further thoughts a dangerous one.
Are governments so powerless that they need to stoop to the levels of these crooks to fight them?
Do we expect government to change policies and rules like a banana republic to tilt at windmills while honest citizens bear the brunt?
Do we expect the government to take away the very things terrorists seek to take away from us - stability, security & freedom in the name of catching these terrorists?

Please think again, this is the folly of all so called nationalist thinkers, forcing people to play by arbitrary rules while allowing a free hand to the government , allowing it to make a mockery of existing rules & institutions in the pursuit of so called (and shifting) goals for the betterment of the nation.