Elections in Democracy By T.S. Khanna, Feb. 13, 2016

Foundation for Better Government

(www.bettergovt.blogspot.com)

February 13, 2016

Elections in Democracy

By T.S. Khanna, February 12, 2016

In a “politically correct culture”, it may be incorrect to say a correct thing.  Yet, at times, our moral imperative propels us to focus on irrefutable facts that are noticeably at variance with some of the prevailing axiomatic truths.

Let us take a look at our philosophy of equal right to vote, equal right to candidacy for any public office, freedom of (irresponsible) speech, and their impact on election outcome.

Factual observations show that no two men are equal in looks, intelligence, perception, interests, motivation, or potential.  Taken together, they make up the capacity of man.  The declaration, “…..All men are created equal….” meant to provide equal treatment under the law and equal economic opportunity for all men.  The slogan pursued in its literal sense is repugnant to Nature and a subversion of natural order of equability and justice. 

Wealth producing incentives require that people be rewarded according to their contribution to the society.  Disparity of wealth is created due to varying capacity of men.  Disparities of wealth, viewed in proper perspective, serves as the fuel for economic engine as people with positive attitude get inspired by the wealthier and renew their ambitions and energies.

To eradicate or prevent poverty, we must keep the motivation alive by rewarding and honoring the people according to their contribution.  Here is a case for additional voting weight v/s equal voting right.

Yet, the slogan is being pursued in its literal sense, leading the Supreme Court to a corollary: “one-man-one-vote.”

Wealth consuming parasitic minds view the wealthier as undeserving of their wealth.  They believe they have a birth right (natural right) to others’ wealth.  Under equal voting right, they demand others’ wealth.  Open borders and the liberal welfare system have been nurturing and increasing the number of such voters.  More and more candidates get elected to demand higher taxation for the wealthier, minimum wage for the workers, and free-bees for the non-workers.

.Under the equal voting right, majority of voters, who pay little income tax, are able to demand higher taxes from others.  For them, disparity of wealth is an over-riding issue to kill the “Golden Goose” who pay most taxes and create most jobs.  It is changing the highly competitive American wealth producing Capitalistic Democracy to a non-competitive, wealth consuming Socialistic Democracy.  Lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 has further accelerated the process.

Socialistic democracy is a step closer to communism, i.e., extinction of democracy.  In other words, one-man-one-vote is a slow suicide by democracy.

Moreover, majority of voters in low tax bracket are ignorant of public affairs, governmental purpose, structure, and its operations.  With their low level of information and interest, their perception of political issues, at best, is hazy.  They are easily misled and manipulated by smart campaigns and speeches.  With their equal voting right, they stampede the minority of enlightened voters who can rationally judge the issues and the candidates in their correct perspective.  Here the best potential of the society is pre-cluded from getting elected to public positions.

The old belief that anyone can do any government job worked well for rural democracy.  The modern day complex society demands well educated, well trained public officials with incisive analytical ability, good judgment, sound character, and uncompromising integrity.  Equal candidacy right for all to all public positions, crowds the field with unfit candidates. 

Here even the most enlightened voters have no way of judging the candidate’s ability for job performance.  In the absence of any requisites for the job, the only way for voters to judge the candidate is from his manipulative campaigns and speeches.  The competition is reduced to well rehearse scripted speeches.  During the speeches, debates, and campaign noise, enlightened voters have no means of sifting the facts from fiction, and the ignorant voters have no desire.

That is why, good orators, with fluency of words and charisma, get elected with little attention to their ability or sincerity to deliver the promises they make.  Lack of mechanism in place for accountability keeps them secure in politics.  Here, again, the best potential of the society gets pre-empted from getting elected.

Every public office has an aura or hallow of certain veneration, grace, and dignity that an elected official must live up to.  That includes certain responsibilities beyond the legal authority of the office.  Such responsibilities are best carried if the official has a reputation of good character and a public image of pleasant personality.  But, during the election, freedom of speech is abused to pack well blended lies and half-truths to assassinate the opponent’s character and personality image.  In addition, in public debates, candidates spar and trade insults.  Eventually, whoever gets elected cannot carry the necessary public image to the office.

In view of the preceding discussion, it seems that democratic systems can be greatly improved by

• Adopting requisites to qualify voters;
• Assigning voting weight in accordance with the voter’s contribution;
• Adopting requisites to qualify candidates for various public positions;
• Enforcing strict regulations ensuring that voters are not misled by lies and the debates are issues oriented, not person or personality oriented.