Diversity in Democracy By T.S.Khanna,Feb. 6,2012.

Diversity in Democracy

By T.S. Khanna, Feb. 6, 2012.

Democratic system of government was designed to accommodate people with diverse origins, belief systems, cultures and varying economic and educational levels. Theoretical assumption in the system design was that people would resolve their differences by rational discussions for their mutual benefits. It was assumed that with passage of time, diverse groups would merge into the main stream of the society acquiring new common identity. The society would, thus, become homogeneous enough to identify and pursue their common good or public interest.

It was expected that with the new opportunities provided by freedom, the diverse groups would keep growing intellectually; they would enrich the society culturally and also strengthen it politically.

However, actual practices have not supported the assumptions. Diversity may make the society culturally rich but it certainly makes it politically weak. With educational and economic progress, visible diversity may soften but politically it keeps hardening and sharpening with time.

Under the state-of-the-art democratic systems, the diverse groups have full freedom and opportunity for growth without any defined obligations for compromises and political loyalty to the government representing all diverse groups besides the main stream.

Unqualified human rights and freedom tends to create a culture supportive of atomizing the society politically. No wonder, even with the best of economic growth, democratic societies keep growing politically weak, devoid of synergistic power.

Politically speaking, a diverse group may be evaluated for its size, i.e., the number people in the group, and for its intensity, i.e., how strongly the group members feel about their self-righteousness and identity. Too strong a diverse group can cause a breakdown of the society.

During the time of good economy, diverse groups may show sufficient functional integration for mutual benefit but they are on a constant watch for an opportune moment to expand their economic and political influence at the expense of others.

Human concept of life and the Universe is based on (a) inherited religious beliefs, and, (b) practical knowledge of physical realities gained by scientific investigations. All definite physical knowledge lends itself to practical logic and testable physical proof. All meta-physical knowledge, beliefs, tenets, and dogmatic customs, surpass the definite physical knowledge. They are non-testable, given by religions.

Since no logic is used to establish the non-testable truths, no logic is acceptable to dispute those truths. Hence, religious diversity cannot be compromised or even softened by the democratic means of rationalism.

The problem of religious diversity has its roots in the conflicting non-testable meta-physical concepts and dogmas that surpass the realm of rationalism. In theory, democratic systems separate government from religion by a firewall. In practice, diverse religious groups keep simmering as most explosive political time bombs.

Yet another diversity hard to compromise is the diversity in language.

The state-of-the-art of democracy may be improved by revisiting and refining the democratic systems by (a) redefining the human rights with logical limits and attendant obligations, and, (b) adopting a national language and strictly enforcing its official use.