My opinion is NO.
Does democracy really define giving power to people in its framework? I think NO.
Other than voting, people have NO power at all.
It looks to be more of whitewash. OR has certain aspects of it been hidden from
Let's take few examples:
We people can vote a person to power. That's it!! FULL STOP there...
Can we really give feedback of that person?
Can we do appraisal/assessment of that person?
Can we bring him/her down from power before 5 years?
Can we punish him/her if any mistake is done?
Can we stop him/her from changing party or changing words/promises?
Government employees are people servants (Jan Sevaks). They say.... Really?
Does any servant of our house gets treatment like king (though he/she must be respected as they are humans and they are earning money by working and not by begging)? No, then why these so called government servants are treated like king by everyone (they expect also that)?
Whereever a politician or government officer goes, they are welcomed with garland, VIP treatment and so many people accompanying them. Why all these if they are Jan Sevaks?
Aren't they suppose to be focused on doing seva to people? Why do they need all of those?
Why democracy system has all of these practices?
Why they should be treated differently, specially?
If they are Jan Sevaks, then why RTI concept was not part of democracy framework?
Why there should be so much of debate and struggle to make it happen? RTI was introduced only few years back. Even then it is not everywhere.
Shouldn't RTI be a default feature or by-product of any function within democracy framework? Since democracy is for the people by the people to the people.
If democracy is for the people by the people to the people, then do we have control over the laws that are being passed. The ruling government will introduce those laws which are discussed within the assembly of all ministers and be decided to pass or reject the law.
Then what about people? Do those ministers really connect with people before taking decision? No. Are we able to do anything?
Just because they are elected by us, it does not mean that he/she is representing our needs/opinions.
This is it for now... let me end here as part 1. More will continue as and when I get those questions or observe them.
Share your thoughts
Does democracy really define giving power to people in its framework? I think NO.
Other than voting, people have NO power at all.
It looks to be more of whitewash. OR has certain aspects of it been hidden from
Let's take few examples:
We people can vote a person to power. That's it!! FULL STOP there...
Can we really give feedback of that person?
Can we do appraisal/assessment of that person?
Can we bring him/her down from power before 5 years?
Can we punish him/her if any mistake is done?
Can we stop him/her from changing party or changing words/promises?
Government employees are people servants (Jan Sevaks). They say.... Really?
Does any servant of our house gets treatment like king (though he/she must be respected as they are humans and they are earning money by working and not by begging)? No, then why these so called government servants are treated like king by everyone (they expect also that)?
Whereever a politician or government officer goes, they are welcomed with garland, VIP treatment and so many people accompanying them. Why all these if they are Jan Sevaks?
Aren't they suppose to be focused on doing seva to people? Why do they need all of those?
Why democracy system has all of these practices?
Why they should be treated differently, specially?
If they are Jan Sevaks, then why RTI concept was not part of democracy framework?
Why there should be so much of debate and struggle to make it happen? RTI was introduced only few years back. Even then it is not everywhere.
Shouldn't RTI be a default feature or by-product of any function within democracy framework? Since democracy is for the people by the people to the people.
If democracy is for the people by the people to the people, then do we have control over the laws that are being passed. The ruling government will introduce those laws which are discussed within the assembly of all ministers and be decided to pass or reject the law.
Then what about people? Do those ministers really connect with people before taking decision? No. Are we able to do anything?
Just because they are elected by us, it does not mean that he/she is representing our needs/opinions.
This is it for now... let me end here as part 1. More will continue as and when I get those questions or observe them.
Share your thoughts