Voter Apathy in Democracies

There are many factors that affect the voter turnouts in a free democracy. Some important things are,

Smaller the size of the country or constituency, better voting percentage as the local issues are not only flagged but understood well by the voters. Also they feel their exercise of franchise would make a perceptible impact in the outcome. That is why Loksabha elections might have a lower turnouts than assembly elections, while town councils would have the maximum turnouts!
Economic hardships lead to apathy. Why would one keep off from their daily wages for the sake of voting! Poor countries would generally have lower voter turn outs.
Economic prosperity and stability too would have their own share of higher sense of voter apathy. They feel nothing would change their life – be it Ram or Ravan.
Higher Educational level too has a similar impact – can make one apathetic as nothing could change their life whom-so ever occupy the throne
On the other hand, Policies that had impacted recently or that could make a massive impact, would increase the voter turnouts – due to disgust or enthusiasm. For example 1977 anti emergency. Karnataka and TN assembly elections – freebies and anti-incumbency. If there no burning issues – status quo and lower turn outs.
Feeling a sense of civic duty in democracy – oh. who bothers nowadays – the less said on this the better!

Should voting be made compulsory as in some ‘democracies’? Forcing the subjects to express their ‘free will’? Sounds oxymoron???

Ok. So there are many that are keeping the voters apathetic to voting. Some local factors are not highlighted. Western press remarked, “why should india have the general elections at the peak of its summer especially when there is heat wave? The voter turnout could be awfully low!”

But so far the voter turnouts are not anyway different from other general elections. Also as our minister of external affairs rebuked, “our worst turnouts are generally better than their best”!

In a sound working vibrant democracy, the magic number seems to hover around 65% across the world! Anything lower is apathy. Even a few percentage higher could be ‘wave’!

தங்கிலீஷ் – தமிழை துரத்திவிடுமோ?

“என் டாட்டரை ஸ்கூல் என்ட்ரன்ஸ் கிட்ட டூவீலர்ல கொண்டு ட்ராப் பண்ணிட்டேன்!”-

“என் ஹஸ்பெண்ட் ஷாப்பிங் காம்ப்ளக்ஸ் என்ட்ரன்ஸ்ல டென் மினிட்ஸ் வெயிட் பண்ணினால் வந்து பிக் அப் பண்ணிக்கிறேன்னு மெஸேஜ் கொடுத்திருக்காரு!”

இந்த மாதிரி இன்னொரு மொழிச் சொல்லை இடைஇடையே பயன்படுத்துவதால் ஒரு மொழி அழிந்து விடாது.

அதே போல் வேற்று மொழி சொற்களை தன்னகப்படுத்துவதும் ஒரு மொழிக்கு அழகூட்டும்: முக்தி, பக்தி, வியாபாரம், வியாபாரி, மோட்சம், விமோசனம், ஸ்வதந்திரம் (சுதந்திரம்), சுயதரிசனம், விஸ்வாசம்… பூமி, பிரபஞ்சம், மேகம், பூலோகம், சொர்க்கம், நரகம், பாதாளம், பவித்ரம்… போன்றவை வடமொழி் சொற்களா அல்லது ஒரு வேளை இவை தமிழேதானோ என ஐயம் ஏற்படும் அளவுக்கு தமிழில் ‘ஐக்கியம்’ ஆகிவிட்டன!

மணிப்பிரவாளம் என்ற ஒரு தமிழும் சமஸ்கிருதமும் கலந்த ஒரு மொழியே முற்காலத்தில் உருவாக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. இது இரண்டு மொழிகளின் பயன்பாட்டு மேம்பாட்டுக்காக உருவாக்கப்பட்டது. காலப்போக்கில் தமிழில் கலந்த சமஸ்கிருதம் தமிழாகவும் சம்ஸ்கிருத்தில் கலந்ததமிழ் சமஸ்கிருதமாகவும் ஆகிவிட்டது. இது போலவே இப்போது தமிழில் கலந்த ஆங்கிலம் பின்பு தமிழ் வார்த்தை ஆகவே மாறி விடும்.

இது தமிழுக்கு மட்டும் அல்ல. எல்லா மொழிகளுக்கும் பொருந்தும். Purest language is the poorest language. ஆங்கிலத்தின் பயன்பாட்டு வளர்வுக்கு மற்ற மொழிகளின் வார்த்தைகளை அதில் பயன் படுத்த எளிது என்பதும் ஒரு காரணமோ?

ஆயினும் fashionக்காக ஆங்கிலத்தில் உரையாடுவதும், முழுமையாக ஆங்கிலத்தில் பேச வராத தருணத்தில் மட்டும் தமிழுக்குத் தொத்துவதும் . . . தவிர்க்கப் படவே வேண்டும் என்று தோன்றுகிறது.

வீட்டில் குடும்பத்தாருடனும் நண்பர்களுடனும் தூயதமிழில் உறையாட இயலாது என்பதுதான் யதார்த்தம். அதே வேளையில் சரளமாக உறையாட ஆங்கிலம் கலப்பதில் என்ன தவறு? கலப்படம் எப்போதுமே ஒதுக்கப்பட வேண்டிய ஒன்றல்லவே! Cocktailsஇன் சுவையே தனிதானே!

ஆங்கிலத்தில் உறையாடுவது தாம் சமுதாய மேல்தட்டில் இருப்பதை வெளிப்படுத்தத்தானோ என்ற உணர்வில் உண்மை உள்ளதாக தோன்றுகிறது. இலங்கை, மலேஷிய தமிழர்கள் உறையாடுவதிலும் தமிழ்நாட்டு தமிழர்கள் உறையாடுவதிலும் இந்த வேறுபாடு தெளிவாக வெளிப்படும். தமிழில் உறையாடுவதில் அவர்கள் பெருமைப்படுகிறார்கள். தமிழ்நாட்டு தமிழனுக்குத்தான் மொழி பற்று மிகவும் குறைவு என்று தோன்றுகிறது. ஏன் இந்த தாழ்வு மனப்பான்மை?

தன் குழந்தைக்கு ஆங்கில rhymes நன்றாக பாடவரும் என்று கூறி பெருமைப்படும் பெற்றோர் எண்ணிக்கை தற்போது அதிகம். தாய்மொழியில் பாடல்கள் இல்லையா? ஆரம்ப பள்ளியில் கட்டாயமாக்குவதுதான் மொழி அழியாமல் இருக்கச்செய்வதன் முதல் படி. தமிழ் ஆர்வலர்கள் ஆட்சியாளர்களிடம் இதனை வலியுறுத்த வேண்டும். வெளிநாட்டில் வாழும் புலம் பெயர்ந்த சமுதாயத்தினர் இதனை அந்தந்த நாட்டில் விருப்ப பாடமாக இணைக்கச்செய்ய வேண்டும். ஒரு மொழி அழியாமல் இருக்க இதுதான் ஒரே வழி. இது எல்லா மொழிகளுக்கும் பொருத்தும்.

1965இல் மலேஷியா, சிங்கப்பூர் இடையே இனக்கலவரம் வெடித்து தனிநாடுகளாக பிரிய சீன, மலாய் மொழிக்கல்வி முறையில் பள்ளிகளில் கொண்டுவரப்பட்ட மாற்றங்களும் ஒரு முக்கிய காரணம். LKG UKG தொடங்கி, ஐந்தாம் வகுப்பு வரையாவது ஆங்கிலத்தில் மட்டும் கற்பிப்பது தடுக்கப்பட்டு தாய்மொழி போதனையும் கட்டாயமாக்கப்பட வேண்டும். ஆரம்ப பள்ளிகளில் தாய் மொழியை கற்பிப்பதை தவிர்ப்பதுதான் மொழி அழிய ‘மூல’ காரணம், தங்கிலீஷ் பயன்பாடல்ல! உயர்கல்வியை மட்டும் ஆங்கிலத்தில் பயிற்பிப்பதால் வேலைவாய்ப்பு அதிகரிக்கும் என்பதில் ஐயமில்லை. ஆரம்ப பள்ளிகளில் தாய்மொழியை கறபிப்பது அந்த மொழியை அழியாமல் காக்கும் என்பதும் திண்ணம்.

மொழிதான் ஒரு சமூகத்தின் குறியீடு – அந்த மொழி கல்விமுறையில்தான் காக்கப்பட வேண்டும். உயர்கல்வியை தாய்மொழியில் பயிற்பிப்பதால்தான் அம்மொழி வளரும் என்பதில் உண்மையில்லை. அன்னிய மொழியால் அறிவடைந்து அந்த பொருளாதாரத்தால் சமுதாயம் உயர்ந்தால், தாய் மொழியின் பயன்பாடும் தானாகவே வளரும்!

Democracy: Is it a challenge to developing nations?

Celebration of festival of democracy starts in a couple of days from now in India. This, a little more than a month long festival, culminates in identifying new rulers on 23rd May. Silent transfer of leadership is in the offing. Shouldn’t the humankind be proud of devising such a system of transfer of power after due scrutiny of the past performance? A country, with a population of more than billion and quarter, having more than 60% being eligible to exercise their franchise, is organising itself for this daunting task. In a country, with so much of disparities in the society, be it caste, religion or wealth or access to services, this festival bestows power in the hands of all adults.

Democracy is laid on the fundamental tenet that individuals are rational and therefore can fathom what is right for their country. At the heart of any definition of democracy lies the provision of human rights. The system of equal rights of voting once they reach the eligible age criterion, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor or educated or not, has evolved over a period of time. Though the history of democracy begins in Athens, around 500 BC, it finds recognition in the era of European Enlightenment. 20th-century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive “waves of democracy”, variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonisation, and religious and economic circumstances.

While there seems to be a clamour for democracy, does it guarantee prosperity? A famous quote of Harry Emerson Fosdick reads, Democracy is based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people. Any nation under any system of governance can progress and rise if it has a leadership that could make tough decisions.

For example, China does not practice democracy. It instead believes in the forced compliance of policies it considers vital for development. It also does not leave the business of choosing political leaders to masses. The standing committee of Politburo, the decision-making arm of China’s Communist Party, decides the question that who shall rule the country. Political leadership in China grows from within the party and is marked by years of governance experience. Leaders are selected against a set of norms that includes performance measures, opinion polling within the party, term, and age. Though ordinary Chinese may not have a say to decide who would reign their country, the culture of consultative process within the party, a departure from the one-man decision practiced by Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, has made China’s political system more inclusive. As far as democracy per se is concerned, it has no place in China.

China has been criticised for its policies considered in violation of human rights, such as the detention of rights activists and gaging social media sites or limiting people’s access to the Internet. China does all this with a singular aim of not allowing anyone disturb the pace of its development. China is not perturbed when the US or the United Nations raise fingers against rights issues. When China began hanging people on accusations of corruption in matters related to public welfare, no amount of international uproar could restrain it.

With the successful models of both democracy and authoritarian regimes, the case of Pakistan can be seen a war between the two systems. Three coups and umpteen backdoor interventions, from the establishment, have kept the political system in turmoil. All these years neither the military rulers nor the civilian leadership could make human development possible.

After nearly 40 years of Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis, that predicts democracy as the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government, only 39 per cent of the world’s total population (88 out of 195 countries) live in fully “free” polities! Many of them are under veiled democratic (totalitarian) order. The Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 that promised to usher in a possible “fourth wave” of democratisation, has sadly failed. Barring Tunisia, democratic revolts in the Middle East have been crushed by a combination of war and terrorist violence unleashed by authoritarian regimes. The authoritative rulers had kept the human development indicators so weak that people in those counties remained poor, underdeveloped, unemployed and bereft of professional opportunities. The reason why democracy could not help much is that the attitude of the leaders towards human rights did not change. The European Union too could not succeed in preventing rightist populists in Hungary, Poland and Italy from openly trampling upon liberal democratic institutions. The prominent emerging democratic powers like Brazil, India, Indonesia and South Africa, so far have failed to inspire and transform the current world order.

But, extreme economic inequality and insecurity for the have-nots have compounded the anger against the unaccountable “democratic” regimes. The association of unjust globalisation with democracy is automatic because the theoretical and practical assumption of liberalism is that democracy is the necessary political instrument of capitalism.

To understand and analyse any policy change, be it capitalism or ‘Brexit’, or to ensure progress in a democracy, the quality of education is paramount. Thomas Jefferson once said: “The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electoral.” It is too naive to conclude that until we have that educated lot, and a leadership that could carve an indigenous system of governance, let the Chinese model be the saviour for developing nations!

Compare the two Asian giants: India may not be growing as fast as China but there is no denial of the fact that, considering the wide spectrum of social and linguistic diversity and disparities, by and large, India is a peaceful nation! That is because of its vibrant democracy. For this, It is of paramount importance that the intent of democracy shall be visible and perceptible, that is the election process shall be beyond any iota of suspicion. Though In an eco system where votes can be bought, transferred, re-casted and reshuffled, the democracy would fail miserably, all efforts shall be made not it is fair but it should to appear.

May be for this reason, the Indian Supreme Court has recently directed the election commission to increase the number of VVPATs (Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail) though it may entail some delay in announcing the results! The laughing matter would be the loosing parties would always cry foul over EVM (Electronic Voting Machine) and tout for the return of paper ballot system! Never they would accept blame themselves for their defeat! The innovations in the technology has ensured not only the safety of trees and the nature, by shifting from the traditional paper ballots but also in ensuring quick counting and the announcement of the results! Even the so called ‘advanced countries‘ are yet to adopt this elegant system!

Men may come and men may go, but democracy is there to flourish in India even though eradication of poverty continues to be a promise in the manifestos of all parties since independence. After all, In democracy only promises win the votes! But rest assured, In a true democracy, there may be even poverty, but there would be peace!

Credits:

1. https://nation.com.pk/13-Mar-2018/the-chinese-model-of-governance

2. Francis Fukuyama (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-910975-5.

Terror in civilised world

Would terror tactics succeed in a civilised world?

Can a small fly take a revenge to destroy a crafty antique chinaware store? Yes, if It can locate a bull loitering near the shop; just enter its ears! Terrorists are after all only flies, but they can irritate a nation to react violently! The casualties of terrorism (all types included) are in minuscule numbers compared to even traffic accidents. It does not decapitate the enemy of either its personnel or ammunitions as in a war encounter; the casualties are mostly white collar office goers and street venders! But then why bother?

While no government is penalised by its citizens for large scale casualties in natural calamities, those in power could be dethroned even if there is a single terror attack! Like the irritating thunderous noise a stone can make in an empty jar, people aver ineffective protection of their peace. USA was compelled to take several military actions in Middle East as a retaliation against terror attack on Sep 11, 2001. After a number of casualties in several ‘theatres’ spreading over a decade, the ‘fly’ was killed in Pakistan on 2nd May 2011.

The acts of Terrorism is a wish to provoke the otherwise calm and peace loving nations to use their force indiscriminately and get sympathy from ’civilised’ world for occasional mistakes in the campaign. Have the terrorists succeeded? Terrorists do get sympathy from a large section of ‘unaffected’ in the society!

It is a dilemma for the peace loving nations, to act to not to act. It is impossible to ensure complete protection to its vast population in an era of globalisation against terrorism, even with advanced gadgets and tactical espionage! Also, terrorism can’t be stopped by indiscriminate use of power against a faceless foe either, though ‘surgical strikes’ might help even though there would be some whispers against.

While turning a blind eye to the vandalism is an alternative, facing the wrath of its citizens would be a heavy storm to weather for those in power. Can the next generation resist getting panicky? Avoiding knee jerk reaction seems to be the only way out for a society that can successfully put up against the onslaught of terrorism. Of course technology would come handy for surveillance and prevention. Only then the ‘sinister flies’ can be defeated!