Demonetizing the most widely-circulated banknotes and now 'no consent required' by the government to get fingerprints. So much for the world's largest democracy.
The case is on whether this democratic law is constitutional. They're backing a social security number with biometrics, and for that to be implemented, people will need to consent.
It never reflected modern systems of government (neither those that come close to respect for individual liberties nor those that do not) and its adjective form democratic really only refers to the processes of appointing leadership. A better word for the sort of thing happening here in America and (it would seem) in India might be anti-liberal, but then that word has political baggage of its own in the United States, and a similarly distorted meaning. Perhaps 'illiberal-democracy,' as a liberal democracy implies a republic with at least semi-democratic election to leadership underpinned by a lowest common denominator of shared values: peace as an ideal, individual liberty, some property rights, and an amount of cultural openness or tolerance.
In the United States, we've seen Trump rise in the wake of two waves of Republican success in the low turnout midterms of 2010 and 2014 and after even earlier stratagems to control State governments and thereby all the redistricting following the 2010 census (to jam a proverbial foot in the door of every valuable Congressional election until 2020). All very Late-Roman-Republic maneuvering and none of it 'democratic.'
Of course, if we had a more directly democratic system things would likely have been even uglier, independent of who came out on top. When 51% of people get their hands on the power tap, they like how it feels, and not in a good way for the other 49%. Though, I suspect from your comment you might agree. Feel free to snark at me if I'm wrong.
> This is what democracy looks like - the enforcement of the will of the majority.
Change 'will' to 'whims' and we're on pretty much the same page. Though what's happening in India sounds more like the gradual march of bureaucracy and its exploitation by interested parties rather than a will or even whim of the majority of voters.
Not only. Democratic also (but not only) refers to the rule of law, separation of powers, branches of government, bicameral legislative branch, independent judiciary, and associated checks and balances.
> what's happening in India sounds more like the gradual march of bureaucracy and its exploitation by interested parties rather than a will or even whim of the majority of voters.
Voters are a) whimsical because of and b) manipulable thru appeals to blind emotions (e.g. fear and hope). The antidote is a thoughtful electorate. This requires an educated society but more importantly a highly ethical society.
And so I believe what's happening in India is a program based on the realization that you can't have individual liberty and collective democracy without personal responsibility and civic accountability. There is and will be resentment - so until it becomes a way of life some broad coercive measures are being used to enforce policy. You can call this illiberal or authoritarian - or you can call it pragmatic. The key for it to be perceived as pragmatic is for the central government to swiftly take down any internal corruption. It will reinforce the integrity of such coercive measures and amplify the ethos of "accountability".
p.s. an ideal/utopian liberal democracy might be a fiction but so are all of our aspirations
If we did have an absolute right, then suicides and late stage abortions would be legal.
So the question isn't whether citizens have an absolute right. Because that's already been decided. The question is where do you draw the line.
Personally, I do think we should have an absolute right (therefore I'm in favor of late stage abortions and suicide). But clearly others, and the law, think differently.
The Central government in India is weak, Modi is trying to accumulate power and steps like these concentrate more power to Center than States. Mostly to kick in economic reforms among other things, and with great confidence I can tell, it will fail.
Having said, that an imperfect democracy is acceptable over some idealistic vapor-cracy. There is room for improvement, heck yeah, but delivering Democracy to 1.2 billion people even in its crude form is not a small feat.
The current government does not represent all the different people in the country. For example the current ruling party has never won even the smallest of representation in any election in the history of my state and for good reason Both BJP and Congress have Delhi centric view points and in the case BJP strong communal tones as well. If the state powers are not strong then who will represent people like me?
Yeah democracy is not easy to deliver to a country like ours, but we already had it in good measure and now we are loosing it piece by piece .
The jury is still out on this one. Any hard proof or statistics that say otherwise ? Wish there was more transparency.
Pray tell what exactly was achieved by demonitisation?