Hacker News Reader

Comment by innagadadavida | Hacker News Reader

Modi has diluted certain carve-outs and rights of minorities. However, he has done this in a democratic manner - the majority of Indians want these policies, that's the reason they keep re-electing him. Author of the article needs to go back to school - first it quotes that "Modi is using his electoral dominance for X, Y, Z". Then goes on to claim that this is undemocratic. Doing what you were elected by the masses to do - multiple times is the definition of democracy.

View on HN

A typical definition of democracy is "the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief".

Where did you find that definition?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

It isn't there at least. I think you're confusing the definitions of democracy with the typical politician's bloviation about "what democracy really means."

Cambridge Dictionary by Cambridge University Press. A word (in English) means what it is understood to mean. A narrow definition of its origin isn't that.

It's the common understanding, not "one guy online thinks it means something, so it does." Dictionaries helpfully record those evolving, common understandings for reference.

Well, wiktionary has several meanings, one of which is close to that:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democracy

However, other meanings are more specifically about how decisions are made or government officials are chosen. I think wiktionary is correct that all of these are commonly used meanings of the word.

I’ve never heard that definition. I thought democracy was about voting.

The article, at least at first, doesn't seem to be concerned with minority rights. It's concerned about institutions necessary to actually maintain a democracy. Things like an independent press, independent judiciary, and election apparatus not unduly influenced by the current party in power. Degrading or getting rid of these things is anti-democratic even if a majority of people want it. A majority of voters can want single-party or even single-person totalitarianism, but that is still anti-democratic. Hitler won elections, too.

We all agree that these institutions are required and there has to be balance of power. What Modi has convinced majority of people is that a.) these institutions are not incorruptible b.) these are being funded and controlled by foreign entities. c.) The controlling entities have no skin in the Indian democracy or people. The opposition is losing power because they are not able to convince these people otherwise. Democracy is just the outcome of elections and voting. Just equating everyone with Hitler is shallow and won't win any arguments - it is also very demeaning to all the people who actually suffered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com