It was in the House of Commons that Sir Winston Churchill had delivered his famous speech in which he “condemned” Democracy as a bad form of government, but quickly hastened to add that none had come into being that could be described as better. It was surely a unique — (characteristically Churchillian) way of paying homage to the democratic form of governance.
Years later Iacocca the famous car-maker from Ford when took over Chrysler as Chairman and launched his first car on the platform of his new company, made an unprecedented decision to appear himself in the TV commercial, Addressing the viewers he said:
“This may not be as good a car as you desire, but if you can find a better one buy it”.
This Churchillian approach in endorsing the unparalleled excellence of democracy, despite being highly creative also had an intrinsic implication. Democracy was not flawless, and had room for improvement.
When Churchill talked of democracy in that speech of his, he obviously had British democracy in mind — the democracy in which people elected the House of Commons (or Parliament) and the Parliament elected the Leader of the Majority as the Chief Executive. The flaw that in all probability was found in this system by Churchill was that the Chief Executive was not elected directly by the people, and he for his election had to rely largely on wheeling-dealing within the party ranks. Besides this flawed procedure of leadership- election, the British democracy was found wanting in another area too. W. Auden had said.
“Parliamentary system is designed in such a manner that the majority has its way, and the minority its say.”
Meaning thereby that 49% people being in minority could not have their way in democracy, and a member could get elected by securing just 30% votes, leaving 70% high and dry because their votes, having been divided between the losing candidates, did not matter. Meaning thereby that in the British style of democracy real majority could end up disempowered.
I am writing all this, keeping in view the probable reasons behind Churchill’s stopping so very very short of dubbing democracy as perfect.
But is the flawed British parliamentary system the only form of governance that is democratic?
What about the system that empowers the people to elect the country’s chief executive directly—that leaves simply no room for horse-trading and manipulatory wheeling dealing?
What about electing the provincial chief executives too, through this unquestionably democratic method that empowers ‘people’ in the truest sense of the word?
What about making the Parliament responsible not for governance and administration but for continuous legislation on all matters?
What about forming the parliament on the basis of the proportion of votes each party gets, thus ensuring representation of each vote in the parliament?
All these ‘question marks’ combine to point to the collective fear of 300 or so oligarchs of the country, of losing power decisively to 160 million people of the country. These oligarchs surely have manufactured strong but senseless arguments in the support of a system that disempowers people effectively.
In the support of what I am trying to advocate, I am making a sweeping statement.
Jinnah didn’t need Muslim League to become Quaid-i-Azam And Bhutto had become the heart-throb of millions long before he formed the PPP.
(This column was first published on 03-06-2007. It is so pertinent today that we have published it again.)
- Latest
- Trending
