EVERY EXPRESSION OF SOCIAL DIVISION IN POLITICS DOES NOT LEAD TO DISASTER. EXPLAIN
Answers
Answered by
89
It is true that in a Democracy not every political expression of social divisions is disastrous because of the following reasons:
a. It ensures adequate representation and accommodation of diverse interests.
b. It allows marginal social groups to ventilate their grievances and in a way asks government to be more responsive to their needs.
c. It expands the very idea of Democracy with adequate arrangements of power sharing with these marginal social groups.
Given that social divisions exist, politics is sometimes the means by which the people on the two sides of each divide negotiate how to get along with each other, or how and how much to redistribute resources from one to the other (such as in India from 'higher' to lower castes, or in the West from the rich to the poor; or in Reaganomics, from the poor to the rich). Often these divisive issues are negotiable. Politics can be the means of gauging the strength of feeling and will of competing groups.
One can quote the example of Belgium which ensured that all linguistic groups are duly recognized and accommodated in its system of power sharing to prevent the outbreak of conflict in the society. It not only provided for community government but also equal representation to the linguistic groups in the central government.
Even in India, we can give example of Linguistic reorganization of states, where states have been created on the basis of languages like Telugu speaking state of Andhra Pradesh, then Maharashtra, Gujarat etc. Such a reorganization was initially felt would lead to disintegration of the country and would foster separatism rather it has helped in expanding democracy and reduced the chances of possible conflict and disintegration of society. In India, expression of social division in politics has rather strengthened national unity by giving due respect to diverse groups.
a. It ensures adequate representation and accommodation of diverse interests.
b. It allows marginal social groups to ventilate their grievances and in a way asks government to be more responsive to their needs.
c. It expands the very idea of Democracy with adequate arrangements of power sharing with these marginal social groups.
Given that social divisions exist, politics is sometimes the means by which the people on the two sides of each divide negotiate how to get along with each other, or how and how much to redistribute resources from one to the other (such as in India from 'higher' to lower castes, or in the West from the rich to the poor; or in Reaganomics, from the poor to the rich). Often these divisive issues are negotiable. Politics can be the means of gauging the strength of feeling and will of competing groups.
One can quote the example of Belgium which ensured that all linguistic groups are duly recognized and accommodated in its system of power sharing to prevent the outbreak of conflict in the society. It not only provided for community government but also equal representation to the linguistic groups in the central government.
Even in India, we can give example of Linguistic reorganization of states, where states have been created on the basis of languages like Telugu speaking state of Andhra Pradesh, then Maharashtra, Gujarat etc. Such a reorganization was initially felt would lead to disintegration of the country and would foster separatism rather it has helped in expanding democracy and reduced the chances of possible conflict and disintegration of society. In India, expression of social division in politics has rather strengthened national unity by giving due respect to diverse groups.
Similar questions