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.