This debate starts from the present scene in Turkey - what is better : A democratically elected non-secular president or a non-democratic intervention by its Army to maintain secularism.
Usually we tend to believe that both Democracy and Secularism go together. However, they are two totally different concepts. You can have a non-secular democracy like Pakistan (well, not now under Musharraf ofcourse) or a strictly secular non-democratic nation (Iran under Shah before the revolution). Democracy is, by definition, the rule of the majority. So it doesnt guarantee minority protection unless there are strong supporting institutions. Recent history is replete with examples where a democratically elected leader wreaked havoc on certain sections of population (Hitler on Jews, Modi on Muslims). And it still occurs to this day, even among mature democracies. On the other hand, we in India had an example of a monarch maintaining strict secular principles (Akbar - removed Jajia tax on hindus, respected talented Navratnas like Birbal, Tansen regardless of their religion).
But naturally, the best condition is to have a democratic secular republic. However, if I have to choose just one of these attributes, my vote goes for secularism. Let religion be totally separated from state and politics, no matter what.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
hmmm...this is one thing which I would want to happen. Separating state from religion.
But I am not sure which one I would want. Its a real tough call.
Very well put sir...
"...Democracy is, by definition, the rule of the majority. So it doesnt guarantee minority.."
The catch is - who is minority? In India perhaps Jews and Parsis qualify as minorities.
"modi on muslims" is not beyond the realm of doubt. From what I see in reality - Modi is probably the best PM that we can have. Anyways lets see.
There is nothing but secularism that India had practiced for thousands of years. We will never be a theocratic state. But currently, in India, so called Secularists have lost all sense of the term.
@Gaurav - Undoubtedly Modi is one of the best CMs a state ever had if u look at the economic prosperity. So was Germany under Hitler, great economic prosperity followed by you know what.
@Hirok - Ideally, we should have both and it is really tough call for sure.
@ liveyourdreams
And so was America under Reagan... It depends on what perception you have already made of him...
nicely put! but you forget that neither democracy nor dictatorship are a solution to the problem of governing a country..
we have countries like singapore (whose democractic freedom is widely questioned) where the standards of living and religious / racial equality are second to none.. it's all a function of the person at the top, i guess..
sometimes strong - albeit tyrannical- leadership may make more sense than a leaderless,chaotic democracy (think of China's communist government v/s India)
@jayesh
no question that it all depends on the person at the top.however, because we dont know who is going to be the better person to rule at the top, we cant put the fate of a billion people in the hands of a person and hope that he or she is good at heart. The point is we still have to put our faith in systems,not people and when it comes to that, we have to sit back and decide which system is better.
Post a Comment