Democracy has become dangerous because it started on a dangerous path to begin with, as it equated the quantitative or numerical strength and qualitative count at par. This was a shortcut in the political legislative systems where a simple majority was considered a virtue when, in reality, that majority may be an illusion.
In an election with more than two candidates, a candidate who gets more votes than anyone else is considered the winner, but in reality, they might have only secured 20% of the votes while all other candidates combined secure another 25%, and the remaining 55% of voters abstain from voting. The term “majority winner” in such a contest is misleading because the declared winner did not achieve more than 50% of the votes.
In India, political parties often evaluate a potential candidate’s chances of winning not based on merit but on caste considerations before entering him or her into an election race. And in some cases, they do so based on cost considerations, meaning how much funds a candidate can bring to the party’s kitty after an electoral victory.
The fundamental flaw in the current system is that proponents of democracy associate it with education and rational thinking by individuals. Additionally, the key premise upon which it stands is that all voters are equal.
Not only are these two aspects completely wrong now, but they were also wrong from the very beginning when democracy was first conceived and promoted as a cure-all to eliminate barbaric fascist rulers in the 20th century. They never realized that, with money and power, the barbarians would take control of this so-called beacon of humanity and turn it into a new form of slavery.
The value of votes based on a simple total has limitations. No two individuals are ever completely equal due to differences in education, emotional intelligence, family, economic background, and other factors.
Economics and community ties significantly shape how a person reacts and makes voting decisions. An individual’s support for candidate A or B is influenced by family, community factors, and, most critically, the expected economic advantages of their choice.
For many, who may be lower on the economic or intelligence scale, satisfying the current need is more important than giving up that desire for the future. But they don’t realize that taking on debt today means ensuring future slavery until that debt is paid off. Additionally, voting for the wrong party’s candidate with harmful policies today could cause undesirable or unbearable consequences in the future.
The maxim that “majority is always right” is completely incorrect when the outcome of a poll reflects such an inherently flawed majority. A minority of voters influenced by community interests or financial considerations, voting as a bloc, can override the votes of educated and intelligent voters who base their decisions on considerations of a sustainable and viable future. These voters are not adequately represented. A system that permits such inaccuracies and elevates otherwise unelectable candidates cannot truly be called a system with high integrity.
History is full of examples where large majorities of people have held beliefs that were factually incorrect. But such majorities have, in the process, enacted blundering legislation in public policy that negatively affects everyone, both those who voted for and those who opposed them.
In democracy, power theoretically belongs to the people. But in reality, wealthy corporations and powerful interest groups, through social movements or protests, can exert disproportionate influence and forcefully steer policies, potentially marginalizing the interests of ordinary citizens.
Majority, therefore, is a misnomer in democracy.
