The Interpretation of Politics

From: Rajannya
Subject: The Interpretation Of Politics In Democracy

Politics, it seems to me to be over the years, is that aspect of human
living which expresses the collective will of all individuals. When a
vision finds no place in this broad and complex collective, it is
either all-encompassing and transcendental, or eccentric and
misguided. The immediately succeeding meaning of the word (politics)
is the play involved in authority; in acquiring, mobilizing, and
holding on to it; and the very word, authority, implies the act of
policymaking. Interlinked these both meanings are, for where the
expression of collective will is so tangible, there creeps the concept
of power.
For many among us, politics is synonymous with democracy: indeed so,
from the way the world is actively saturated with the idea. Close
home, Indian democracy has undergone frequent renovations which have
finally enabled us, post approximately six decades of independence, to
boast of a stabler system of democracy that is brilliantly giving
birth to even higher questions. That there should be so many debates
upon democracy, proves the very fundamental success of the same.
Indian politics hence is especially fertile.
In this light, are we disposed to judge the dual import of Celia Green
when she states the following, "In an autocracy, one person has his
way; in an aristocracy, a few people have their way; in a democracy,
no one has his way."? Green might have been taken to hint that one
never realizes their desire fully in such a system of administration
as one gradually discovers their opinion's promiscuity. Even if it is
the other way round, can democratic politics transcend itself, or can
it otherwize stagnate?

As for me, I find it hard to follow our politics; not that I lack
discretion, or even a hot opinion, with regard to what transpires in
and around my state. Whenever I consider the action of those people
who shall vote for the political party I personally appreciate (I can
only consider: I am two years shorter than the lot of legal voters, as
of now), I cannot help but imagine the considerable percentage of
their counterparts who would vote for the party that is wrong in my
opinion. I want my preferred party to rule over all of us, without any
stir of inhibition on either side: with what conviction should I cast
a vote for solely myself, for I do not constitute on my own the
tiniest quantity of voters?
This is where friction creeps into my interpretations. Democracy
prioritizes quantity over quality. It hardly represents the collective
will. Not that I accuse democracy, as is popular, of facilitating
corruption; everything inclusively facilitates corruption, for it is a
habit too deep-seated to be accrued to anything but itself. I envision
a pristine entity which is at once stable and potential; which has the
sincerity and profundity of actively representing collective human
essence. Are our democratic political parties liberal enough to
manifest this idea? I desire that a strong stem sprouts branches in
order to form a tree; whereas, democracy is all about a number of
branches' coming together to form a stem and a tree's being thus
formed.
I detest having to subscribe to the practice of expressing my choice
and then letting it go to the devil of heads-o'-tails. Notwithstanding
the characteristic offshoots of democracy, vote-banking on targeted
susceptible groups and widespread meal-and-money promises, what does
democracy propagate - the importance accorded to the individual, or
the activation of purely selfish interests? Democracy narrows down the
implications of the words, majority and minority. There is always a
right way and a wrong to do things, and basic opinions into the thing
can turn out to be distortions; democracy advocates that might is
right.


(Postscript) I look forward to being enlightened in this subject by my
seniors at Sefirah.