comprehend the importance of democracy and individual
Answers
Answered by
7
Hi,
hello, if we stick to the definition of Abraham LINCOLN democracy is "the power of the people, by the people and for the people". It is therefore a question of putting the power back to the people. However, everyone can not govern otherwise it would be anarchy, it is the raison d'être of the elections by which the people affirm their sovereignty and their power by choosing their representatives. This choice is made according to the principle "it is the majority who wins" Normally, it must bring more order, peace, understanding and many others but unfortunately this notion is generally poorly understood or taken This is the reason for the crises and popular uprisings that have been going on for several years.
Hope this help ;)
hello, if we stick to the definition of Abraham LINCOLN democracy is "the power of the people, by the people and for the people". It is therefore a question of putting the power back to the people. However, everyone can not govern otherwise it would be anarchy, it is the raison d'être of the elections by which the people affirm their sovereignty and their power by choosing their representatives. This choice is made according to the principle "it is the majority who wins" Normally, it must bring more order, peace, understanding and many others but unfortunately this notion is generally poorly understood or taken This is the reason for the crises and popular uprisings that have been going on for several years.
Hope this help ;)
Answered by
0
Introduction: All those who are familiar with the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi or those who understand his philosophy, they very well know that he was an anarchist. He was for such a stateless society in which life becomes perfect. People, without any prejudice, never become hindrance to one-other’s routines. Moreover, self-regulation, self-dependency and mutual cooperation on priority become essential in day-to-day human practices. For Gandhi, the institution like the State or the system like democracy cannot be the final ideal. These institutions are based on political power, therefore, they can only be the means of enabling people to better their condition at different levels in different walks of life, but cannot lead human beings to achieve the goal of life. In this regard he clearly wrote in Young India on July 2, 1931, “To me political power is not an end but one of the means of enabling people to better their condition in every department of life. Political power means capacity to regulate national life through national representatives. If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation becomes necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a State everyone is his own master. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour. In the ideal State, therefore, there is no political power because there is no State. But the ideal is never fully realized in life. Hence the classical statement of Thoreau that the government is best which governs the least –is worthy of consideration.”
It is clear that even being an astute anarchist and introducer of Ahimsa-based stateless society to the world, Mahatma Gandhi was himself not sure of transformation of his ideas into a reality. Simultaneously, creating an atmosphere of such morality and ethics on the basis of which everybody could develop in him a high degree of intellect never seemed an easy task to him. Then, what could be the alternative? In this context he was quite clear, which could be observed from his support and advocacy for democracy. Accepting democracy to be a great institution, he never asked for its avoidance. Rather, he laid a great stress on decreasing of possibility of its misuse. Democracy, despite being a manmade institution and therefore likely to be misused, if works to the maximum possible extent on the basis of Ahimsa, it can prepare people to self-control, self-dependency and mutual cooperation. In Gandhi’s own words, “There is no human institution but has its dangers. The greater the institution the greater the chances of abuse. Democracy is a great institution and therefore it is liable to be greatly abused. The remedy, therefore, is not avoidance of democracy but reduction of possibility of abuse to a minimum.”
It is clear that even being an astute anarchist and introducer of Ahimsa-based stateless society to the world, Mahatma Gandhi was himself not sure of transformation of his ideas into a reality. Simultaneously, creating an atmosphere of such morality and ethics on the basis of which everybody could develop in him a high degree of intellect never seemed an easy task to him. Then, what could be the alternative? In this context he was quite clear, which could be observed from his support and advocacy for democracy. Accepting democracy to be a great institution, he never asked for its avoidance. Rather, he laid a great stress on decreasing of possibility of its misuse. Democracy, despite being a manmade institution and therefore likely to be misused, if works to the maximum possible extent on the basis of Ahimsa, it can prepare people to self-control, self-dependency and mutual cooperation. In Gandhi’s own words, “There is no human institution but has its dangers. The greater the institution the greater the chances of abuse. Democracy is a great institution and therefore it is liable to be greatly abused. The remedy, therefore, is not avoidance of democracy but reduction of possibility of abuse to a minimum.”
Similar questions