Question

If everyone gets the right to shelter how will it affect the democracy

Answer 1

If everyone gets the right to shelter how will it affect the democracy, The democracy will become more stable.

Answer 2

Though democracy has many broader definitions, it simply means rule by people. I will critically evaluate a system of governance in which leaders are elected through “universal adult franchise”, which means every adult including woman can vote. I will particularly evaluate the Indian system of democracy.

After independence from the British, India gave every adult the right to vote. OK. Now what is a government? A government supposed to administrate a country, make efficient laws, maintain law and order, make economic progress, and protect citizens from inner and outer threats, in a nutshell to make a developed society.

So the role of government is very important in a society. Now of course we need learned persons full of intellect and wisdom, as our leaders. We need leaders who know the past and can predict future possibilities. We need leaders who understand very well the society and the nature of their people. Now how should we choose such “intellectuals leaders full of wisdom”?

India after independence decided to choose such wise man in a very unique and smart way. They give every adult the right to vote and choose their leaders. What a joke? At the time of independence the majority of the people are uneducated. They don’t know how the economy works, they don’t have knowledge about sociology, geopolitics, administration, etc. forget all these things, they don’t know how to read and write, they don’t know how to add and subtract. These peoples have thousands of blind beliefs from thousands of year. They had been ruled by foreign invaders for last 1200 years. You ask these uneducated fool people to choose the intelligent wise leaders, who would make India a developed country. But India did this stupidity. So obviously there had to be bad consequences of this foolishness.

Look around you, what type of leaders your people have chosen. Some people choose their leaders based on their castes (example – UP, Bihar, SP, BSP, Lalu, Mulayam etc.), some choose their leaders because his father was a good leader (ex – BJD, Congress, and many more). Naveen Pattnaik is the chief minister of Odisha for last 20 years. His only speciality is his father was the chief minister of Odisha. Some people choose Gundas/gangsters because they gave the liquor and money, some choose leaders who promised them to give freebies like rice in 1 rupee per kg. Some people choose many film star and cricketers as their leaders (ex – Jayalalitha and many more). Some choose their leaders only because he is a poor man. This is the result.

Now let me describe why I am against universal adult franchise. Suppose you have to go to America via flight with another 500 people. How should the pilot be chosen? Though popular vote? Obviously no, the pilot should be chosen by experts. In universal adult franchise we assume that the people are rational voters, but they are not. Some people argue that USA and many European countries become developed by this type of democracy. They are wrong. For their kind information Europe had already made many developments before democracy came. Many important incidents like Industrial revolution, Renaissance, Scientific revolution happend before democracy came into existence. Most of their people are already educated. And in case of USA they did not give the right to vote to every adult. They initially gave voting rights only to rich man (man having property excluding woman) which constitute only 10 to 15% of the total population. They did this because they were smart. Some things like equality are nice to hear and read but they are not practical on the ground.

In 1992 Indian government did another stupid thing by introducing Panchayati Raj in villages. I have personally seen these elections in villages. Sadly I can’t tell you it’s a comedy of tragedy? All sorts of stupidity like liquor, money, feasts, fighting, and murder are there. That’s why many great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle are against democracy.

But still India has made many progresses after independence, not because of democracy but in spite of democracy. This little progress happened because of some good leaders, administrators, businessman, economists, scientists etc. If you notice you can see most of the development happened after 1991 when government interference in society lessen. If you see America, there the role of government is very less in the society. They have a very free society.

I criticize democracy that doesn’t mean I support dictatorship. I believe in Plato’s system of Noocracy. Noocracy, or "aristocracy of the wise", as defined by Plato, is a social and political system that is "based on the priority of human mind". There can be many debates about the ideal political system, but popular vote surely is not a good system. Chennai Express, a Bollywood movie became a blockbuster in box office because of popularity, that doesn’t mean it’s a great movie. On the contrary good movies rarely become popular and earn money.