When the speaker introducing the new President emphasised the "peaceful transfer of power", I'm sure many wondered why it should be any different. However, we must not forget how rare it is even in this age in the world to have a leader of a powerful nation handing over power through the ballot rather than the bullet. More so, when the new leader represents a race, that less than eighty years ago, was the target of "white supremacy" groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
Change induces hope, and the inauguration of the new President of the USA brings hope to more people in the world than can be counted - that the country which, till the previous administration, represented leadership of the "free, democratic" world, would live up to the ideals of freedom and democracy rather than inflict arbitrary suffering on the rest of the world. I join most such in wishing that such hope is not misplaced. Now, however is the time for optimism, not cynicism.
Post the recent attacks on Mumbai, many young Indians decried the Indian democracy, its politicians, and demanded martial law. I hope that this inauguration will inspire people to introspect about the miracle that is the Indian democratic system. A country as poor as India, as diverse as this nation is, regularly elects to the highest offices - people belonging to different minority segments - by religion, caste, and sex. The "inauguration" process does not include praying to the "gods" of one religion only. We can be truely proud of being a secular, democratic republic - the biggest and the best - make no mistake. Lets keep it that way
Jai hind.
2 comments:
Is India truly a democracy? When a large portion of votes are "dictated" by the gundas... I mean "parties" that wield the biggest stick or pass around the most Rupees, is that truly democracy at work?
Also, a small correction: the US President is directly elected by the people, but neither the Indian PM nor President is directly elected by the people. (PM is invited by the President to form a govt and the President is elected by the MP's). This is a HUGE difference. While Obama is personally accountable for his election promises, the Indian PM is not similarly accountable, only the Party is accountable for election promises.
Sameer, democracy does not ensure lack of corruption. One definition of modern democracy requires the existence of the following conditions - free and fair elections, universal adult suffrage,freedom of expression, and rule of law. Aberrations exist in all societies, but except for the really cynical, most will agree that India does offer these in varying measures to its citizens.
I believe that the actions of our representatives are actions by us - hence the allusion to electing people to the highest offices. I am aware of the differences in the election process.
I would also like to point out that though we like to point a finger at politicians, corrupt politics is neither a phenomena restricted to India, not is corruption limited to politics in our society. I have, unfortunately, had occasion to come across many unethical and corrupt "business leaders", as I have the pleasure of knowing some bureaucrats as friends, who I know as being completely upright and with impeccable integrity. Through them, I understand that the same is true for a few politicians as well. As a society, we need to look at ourselves first - our representatives only reflect society as it exists - as indeed we should expect in a democracy.
Post a Comment