Leader and democracy

Deepak Narain, in his letter Indian lesson for RI published in The Jakarta Post of June 22, sounds too pessimistic about Indian democracy.

While it is true that the quality of leadership matters a lot, it is not always possible for a good leader -- someone uncorrupted, educated, firm and nationalist -- to be elected to the high office, given the pulls and pressures of party politics. Only a person holding a massive vote bank can aspire to become a leader of a democratic nation, except by fate or luck, as in circumstances that led to Manmohan Singh becoming the prime minister of India recently.

A strong and firm leader is not a prerequisite for a democracy. It is just that the leader should be wise enough to listen to the voices of people, and act in the overall interests of the nation. In fact, there is a danger that a strong leader may turn arrogant and become a despot over a period, by bending democracy to suit his whims and fancies, and to hold on to power indefinitely, as history has shown repeatedly.

Deepak Narain says that a universal adult franchise cannot work in a society afflicted with so many problems (as in India). In fact, the right of the vote to every adult citizen, in free and fair elections, is the only way by which the common folk can participate and exercise their free choice as to who should govern them for a specified period of time.

Indeed, democracy should serve the common people -- farmers, workers and the middle class -- not the privileged classes of society only. It is precisely for this reason that universal adult franchise, with all its pitfalls, is essential. The right to vote cannot be left in the hands of an elite class only, it is like putting the clock back hundreds of years.

Interestingly, on the same date -- June 22, the Post published an article penned by Ziad Salim Economy and democracy: Don't turn out the light. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this excellent article. It dealt eloquently with the perils of electing strong leaders, who may ensure stability, but throttle democracy.

A seemingly chaotic democracy, as in India, is any day better than the so-called controlled or guided democracy. Yes, there is, at times, frustration in the minds of Indians, but that should not lead to despair. Democracy demands constant vigil and commitment by all concerned.

D. CHANDRAMOULI

Jakarta