Save democracy with "Participative democracy"

    Many models have been designed to ensure that the elected representatives of the people in democracy represent the complete mix of the people they represent. Yes, that sentence was a mouthful. But, so is the word democracy just, by itself. Of late I have been intrigue by how the residents of huge apartments are running their own country. The apartment is a perfect example of a democratic crowd. The crowd can be extended to include secular based on its geographic location. It has all the problems of a small country. In a country like India, few of the apartment can house approx 150 families. That is a definitely a small district in few other countries. These apartments are managed by a participative democratic system which existed in ancient Greece. Which was the point of contention between Socrates and the state of Greece. This case of Socrates v/s the state of Greece is one of the most interesting court cases. Oh, I am getting carried away. This is the result of not planning your writing. However, let us continue with apartments.

    A lottery system is utilized to select representatives to head activities related to the upkeep and maintaining the day to day activities of the apartment. Nobody can escape from this participative democratic system of governing the apartment. For once, everybody is equal. For once all the citizens are to participate and help the elected representative in carrying out its duties. So, though, you are not the elected leader for a specific task, if you are supposed to help, then you have to. You are participating as a leader as well as a supporter. You are always "in" the daily polity of the apartment. You are participating in one way or the other. For once, it is everybodys damn responsibility to ensure the smooth functioning of the apartment. I am not going to go through the nitty/gritty of running an apartment. It is no less than running a small country.

    What I am suggesting is the implementation of this methodology in grass root governing in a democratic system. In a democratic system, the non participants are huge. Nearly 99.99% of the population. This makes this major population, alien to the working of the governing mechanism. This makes the governing mechanism take total undue advantage of the major population. This is the other sharp edge of the democratic system. This makes the majority population not participate in the day to day running of the country. So we have three classes in this majority. One which likes the present governors, one which hates it, one which doesnt care. There is another group which is part of the corruption or tries to take advantage of this system, though they know that what they do is hurting the majority of the population. These are pretty complicated. These mostly end up in the governing seat. So, the vicious circle repeats.

    It is time to repair democracy, instead of looking at other models. There are no other forms of governance which have the word freedom mentioned as  much as in a democratic system. The majority rule is a recent development. In the ancient greek times when, democracy was at its peak, "participative"  was the buzzword and citizens not participating were labelled "useless". Everybody has to know how to govern. Everybody knows how to govern. Everybody governs themselves. The apartments are running this model, even without knowing they are doing so. The term of the representatives is the same, approx, an year. However, there is one problem. Poor people were not involved, However, now we can include everybody. The grass level can be divided into smaller divisions particularly based on the population. This ensures that the representatives are not overwhelmed. This will be the case for the first few. Once everybody understands the concept, it will become common place. The representatives must have lived in that environment for a certain number of years, so that they represent the population better and understand the job at hand.

    There will always be people who are waiting for their turn. Everybody believes they will better the previous fellow. The present fellow does things, which he believes nobody can better. The representative has to be careful in all his decisions, since he will land up as a commoner after his term is over.

    This should work. I am excited. Whenever we had discussions regarding alternate forms of democracy among friends, the discussions shifted to other forms, except democracy. People go back in time to compare the good old times. When it comes to governing, I dont know why the present crop forgot the fantastic "participative" democracy from ancient Greece. So, you are asking me to develop it further. I will tell you, this is not a theoretical concept that is being put forth. This is a time tested and an in execution methodology. It has just to be implemented. So, what are we waiting for?

    The most important of all in any governance system is the ownership of the responsibilities. This has been so rare in the present majority system, wherein the elected candidate does not consider the vast minority whom he believes have not voted for him. But, in this case, the ownership comes from within, without anybody coercing. Though somebody is not in that chair, all the others who are not in that chair know that one day or the other they will land up in that chair. They will be compassionate with the present representative, which they hope to receive when they sit in that chair. This synergy between the leader and the team being led is so strong and fantastic, you have to be a part of that system to understand it. In the present majority setup, there is a certain dis-connect between the elected individual and the electors, which happens once in 5 years. With the present advancement in technology, 5 years is a very long time. Leadership change should happen every year, at the least. This keeps the leadership above the grassroots on their toes. 

    Every change in the grassroots brings with it, an aura of the elected individual, who has been seeing all things happening around him. Since he is a part of the receipience of the older system, he knows what things were done right and what were done wrong. He will first attack and try to resolve what he believes are being done wrong. It is like, the system is in sync with the rapid changes happening in the technological, political and the economical setup. With the present connectivity, the grassroots are connected, in, real time. It is very easy to borrow the "best practices" in one area and try to implement it in full or modify it to meet the particular place.  and a sense of commitment. 

  One more important aspect is the information on the candidate. In these closed circles, the particular individual will be know because of his past deeds. Or a new person can go about familiarizing the electorate since the size of the group is not as large as it is today. This makes the electorate more knowledgeable about the candidate. They will remember his every move. The duration is short and the electorate can correct their mistake at the earliest. Consider the situation now. Majority of the voters dont know the candidate. They vote for the political party. Now, once the candidate wins, he might land up in the opposite party. Now, the majority voted for the party to which the individual belonged. Now, the candidate has defected. He will now have to act according to the whims of the new party. Now, the voters have to wait for the next election to correct their mistake. By that time, people would have forgotten the past and would associate the candidate with the latest party he has joined. This is horse shit.

    The concept of making a quick buck and running away dont work because his family is a part of the system and all wrong decisions are going to affect him all the same. The election system should borrow from Estonia, since the electoral territory is now very small. This is perfect for both villages and cities. In this inter-connected world, it is difficult for anybody to be aloof. In fact, the aim of the system is not leave anybody aloof. It is to try and make everybody responsible for themselves and their surrounding environment. This is unlike a system, wherein decisions are taken in huge buildings and taken by the majority wins, not one with the representatives who really represent the grassroots. 

    Enough of everybody talking politics and staying away from it, thinking that it is a dirty job and has to be done by dirty people. It is like, everybody is thinking that the other fellow will do it. This is to bring everybody on the execution roll. Everybody is responsible. If something is wrong, a person who stays quite should face as much problem as he is vociferous about it. Yes, we cant wait for "the" person who knows how to do the "job". There is nobody who is "the" person to do the job. And Yes, Socrates, you are wrong.
 

The revolution, can start.

The Hateful Eight :- "The" movie experience

     Film making is an art. Watching more so. But, watching as an art is the result of watching what is on offer. Is watching an art? How so? Well, It is the immersion of one's conscience for a certain amount of time in the film maker's conscience. Film makers cannot put constraints on the audience to come with a certain frame of mind. The film should mold the watchers mind from inception of the movie and kick start that exact frame of mind. Many film makers do this by adapting a style of film making. So, when an audience who knows the style of making, there is already a certain frame of mind ready for the make to start with. It is like the make has created a small world which the audience is already familiar with. This makes the job of the maker much simpler. This allows the maker to take certain things as known. This allows the audience who knows a little about the universe to jump right in. So, should a maker continue to weaver stories in that universe? Maybe, until the universe is the same, the pacing, the style stays, the maker can still make plenty of stories in that universe or a time frame in that universe. He can expand the universe and travel in time in that universe as per the story he wants to tell.

    Well, what do I know about film making, nothing. Watching, yes, a little bit. Let me be clear as to my kind of films. Let me start with what kind I am not. I dont like the Tree of life. I liked the Thin Red line. There you have it. Now, you know where we are headed. Would I have liked the maker of the Thin red line to continue in the same line. No, what if he had made the thin red line and then stayed in that universe. I might have loved it. But, what if the maker only that much. He didnt want to prod that universe further. No mistake of his. But, I did not like the Tree of life, which wanted to encompass "everything", which is impossible. There is not theory of everything, not yet. Now, what I am telling is I did not like the Tree of life. I did not tell that it is bad. Let us not get into good and bad.

    I like film makers who dont make this distinction between good and bad. The film maker should tell a story. The characters can make their own reasons for all their actions. But, the film maker should stay clear of offering judgement regarding good and bad. This makes for an independent view for the viewer. Re-Watching The Hateful eight after watching it when it was released, is the reason this post is created. The characters, the music score, the premise, the execution transformed me to wyoming, again. This is a grand success for a film maker. Transforming the viewer, again, to the same place is a major win. I take a bow to the maker, Quentin Tarantino. Here is a maker who has been consistent in his style, but still making stories in varied setups. 

    But did I like Once upon a time in Hollywood, No, Please. I want to forget that I did watch this movie. It is not in the Tarantino universe, which he has built painstakingly and has been digested by the viewers, effortlessly. So should the viewers complain when shown a complex plot. Should we put on our Science and Mathematics cap before we watch a movie. Hell, No. That will not be a movie, but a glorified documentary. It is better to watch a documentary which explains the concepts well, than an attempt by the filmmaker to take a part of the concept and pour plenty of fiction to cook the movie up. How about shooting a movie linearly and then editing the film non-linearly. It can be entertaining with the awe factor. But, still the non-linearity should be simple enough so that you still have the audience with you.

    The Hateful eight has all the ingredients to be played out as a play, live, in a theater. I would love to watch one, if anybody tried it. Maybe Quentin might try it after he finishes the films which he wants to make. The lines are well written. The non-linearity comes in the dialogues. Very interesting. The viewer is frequently taken back in time on occassions and also made to extrapolate in time just by the characters talking. All the characters talk their linog, their thoughts, their limitations. No character is God like. No character is an all-know. Every characters stays that very character. This give the viewer a consistent interface. This does not cheat the viewer. The heightening of tension, the hallmark of Quentin's writings is intact. 

    The drama is heightened by the music score. There are very rare occasions, wherein the music score elevates the movie experience. Satya, a Hindi movie, comes to the mind. The camera work is not jarring. The film is laid back in its execution, but makes the audience blood to race, an unusual combination. The pace of the movie and the blood rate surge have been equal, on very rare times, like watching the Matrix. The artists are at home. Their attire, their accent, is consistent. Every character has the mix of survival and ego, going together, while situationally, only one of them comes on top. It is a text book movie for film-making. It is a text book movie, for movie watchers. With movie makers creating huge structures for making one, this movie gives a complex to all those elaborate setups.

    The Hateful eight is one more example of the cohesiveness which can be achieved when the story creator and the executor are the same. There is that tight grip on characters and what they speak, how they re-act. All these things cannot be written by the writer and fully transferred to the director. Such well written characters can only be justified if the director also is the same person. The hateful eight is a movie, which made me think, "what a time to be alive".

    Once upon a time in Hollywood is the movie made by the same director, but, which has been passed on to this dimension of the universe from a parallel one, which does not have the tag line "what a time to be alive"