Top scientific journals like Nature, Scientific American, and New England Journal of Medicine in recent times ran articles and editorials condemning the present President (Donald Trump) of the US and seeking to change him. Similarly, many intellectuals, academicians, and politicians publicly declare that they do not accept our present PM as their leader. This is all fine for intellectuals to like or dislike politicians in the best principles of liberalism and freedom and expression. But, this has extremely disturbing moral and ethical implications for the role of democracy and the importance of voting in free countries. When the majority votes for a particular person or a party in a democratic mode, does it not imply that one should honour the decision of the majority till the next elections when one can exercise their franchise? How can supposedly non-political, secular, and neutral scientific intellectuals publicly call for removal, change, or rejection of popularly elected leaders because they have problems with the leadership? Whatever may be the motivation and however correct their reasons are, it is a cornerstone of democracy to accept the decision of majority. A blatant refusal or rejection points to the whole idea of democracy as an extremely flawed institution. Indian traditional ideal of governance was an enlightened monarchy. The ideal of philosopher-kings was also prominent in ancient Greek philosophers. Perhaps, we can question the whole concept of a liberal democracy as the best form of governance. Can scientific journals run strong editorials to bias voters not to vote for a particular person and can someone in the country refuse to call a person as ‘my PM’? As ancient philosophers stressed, all forms of governance, including democracy, come in cycles with each ending in breakdown and revolution. The ability to garner votes disconnected with the ability to administer, the power of oratory skills, nepotism, corruption, mediocrity rising to the top, and the ‘wisest and the best’ removed far away from elections were the critical points of Socratic philosophers against democracy. They remain eerily true even today across the world. What does democracy and voting rights actually mean? Accepting democracy as the ideal and then not accepting the decision of the majority shows the inherent stress and contradiction of this model.
https://www.thehansindia.com/my-voice/myvoice-views-of-our-readers-5th-november-2020-654744
RANDOM MUSINGS 