When Voters Put Themselves Above Their Vote, Democracy Is Bound to Fail

When Voters Place Themselves Above Their Vote, Democracy Begins to Crumble

For years, many citizens of this nation have displayed a troubling intellectual complacency through the leaders they elevated—leaders who, once placed in power, misled the nation and eroded its institutional guardrails.

What made the situation worse was not merely the choice of leadership, but the public’s refusal to acknowledge when that leader stepped beyond constitutional limits. Instead of questioning these violations, many considered it inconvenient—or even unnecessary—to confront the repeated assaults on the soul of our constitutional order.

This silence was rooted in a mistaken belief: that the “spirit of the vote” would always outweigh the “spirit of the Constitution.” People assumed that electoral legitimacy alone could overpower constitutional principles, even as those principles were openly undermined.

But this confidence was misplaced. A democracy in which citizens refuse to internalize even a fraction of the constitutional ethos is a democracy preparing for its own collapse.

Yes, the spirit of the vote holds power. But its legitimacy flows from something greater. When the will of the voters collides with the foundational ideals embraced by the nation—and respected across the world—an outcome that once appeared certain can unravel with stunning force.

That is exactly what happened. Though treated as a distant observer in the political contest, the Constitution ultimately proved stronger than the spirit of the vote.

How did a victory that seemed inevitable fall apart so completely?

The answer is simple: voters placed themselves above the meaning of their vote, while the guardians of the Constitution placed the Constitution above themselves. This fundamental misalignment flipped the outcome on its head.

In any healthy democracy, the spirit of the vote should prevail—but only when it remains anchored to constitutional integrity. When the spirit of the vote is weakened or dismissed, democracy itself begins to suffer.

And the greatest responsibility for this loss lies with those who failed to defend that spirit—those who watched in silence as it eroded before them.

Yet not all is lost. Recovery is possible—not through supermajorities or through rewriting or dismantling the Constitution, but by transcending it, by absorbing its principles as a society. This is the hardest path, but it is the only raj marg available to restore the sanctity of the vote.

Can Tom enact laws for Jerry ?

We all know the famous Tom and Jerry show, and it is one the best cartoons which connects with that kid in us. It is ever struggle between Tom and Jerry each vying to put each other in trouble. There is logical solution to the problem either Tom leaves the home or the Jerry leaves home to end the never ending drama between them but life doesn't give room for the same. They are after each other's neck.

Imagine in a city where all Toms and Jerrys decide to go democratic. They hold elections, get elected and pass the laws. As Toms are in majority, they get a say in deciding what promulgates as the law. Now the situation is Tom wants to pass laws for the Jerry in the city. Ideally since Tom and Jerry have decided to go democratic and give up brow beating way of life, in one word we can say that they are on verge of being civilized and hence Jerrys shouldn't be having any problem in Toms passing laws for them. 

So is the state of democracy in the country wherein BJP wants to pass laws for minorities in the country. Ideally minorities shouldn't be having any problem with BJP passing laws for them as both have agreed to tread the path of democracy as means of living away from feudal fighting history which they share.

Now the problem is Tom while passing the law for Jerry tries to recall all the atrocities Jerry had orchestrated against it during pre-democratic period of time. And hence wants to teach a lesson for pre-democratic atrocities while framing the law for Jerry. But the Jerry knows it has edge when dealing in undemocratic environment but still clings onto the democratic process with a belief in the institutions of democracy which it can approach against the nefarious designs of the Tom.

Tom knows that it has no advantage once Jerry gives up the democratic way of life but still harasses the Jerry. It is a peculiar case of democracy wherein Tom wants to play spoil sport and hold Jerry responsible for the same.

 

oh my trending !!!

There are various types of government - monarchy, communists, democratic etc. Of all these governments democratic form of government is defined as people friendly. Again democracy is defined as Government of the people, by the people, for the people by Abraham Lincoln. For a predefined area one single person is chosen as a representative, collections of such representatives choose a leader and policies are defined under purview of such leadership.

Above paragraph looks so easy to understand but practically it is not. Why? 

Ultimate goal of any good government would be good governance. Good governance means apt representation of aspiration of a person irrespective of his/her caste, creed , religion or economic status for collective development. If you observe keenly in practice it is not so.

For example, a village writes to government for good roads and drinking water. There are distant chances of its request being considered by the administration just by posting a letter or visiting the office of the in-charge. Ideally administration shouldn't be waiting for such letters. When it identifies people settlement it becomes the duty of the government to provide necessary facilities. But in practice it requires considerable use of the term called "influence". It may be through a caste head or a political leader. So a citizen is forced to give in to pressures of so called mass leader for availing facilities.

 So wherein the world democracy being upheld, it is monarchy of different form wherein you are forced to part with your liberties in return for facilities from government.

An ideal way would be government giving due considerations to opinion / requests of the citizen who are willing to communicate with it through letters and memorandums with apt reply for the same.

To counter this indirect blackmailing from the powerful, citizens found unique way of organizing themselves in the form of associations and organizations wherein organizations expressed their opinions through demonstrations and protests to feel empowered in questioning their own created powerful entity.

But by latest these organizations and associations have been hijacked by face-book pages and whats app groups who completely misguide the masses on the basic reason / idea behind organizing themselves in the form of associations and organizations which is nothing but availing facilities from the powerful in the dignified manner.

The epitome of this madness is the politics of trending to showcase their opinion. But sad part of the story is the objectives these trending have achieved. Society would have benefited if there was trending seeking good health schemes or good housing schemes or good employment schemes which showcased the maturity of trend maker.  

I am a supporter not a follower....

Before moving ahead, if you are a political fanatic who thinks that leaders should not be questioned, then excuse me, you should not be continuing. If you still continue, its at your own risk.

There were strict orders from government. Those who discuss the health status of Chief Minister over the internet/ social media , they would be arrested and prosecuted. And the same was done using the state police machinery with a quick reaction time. 

The intention was clear about preventing the panic situation. Days passed and ultimately the Chief minister was declared dead. Police did a wonderful job and no riots were reported. From Prime minister to President, condolences poured in. Amma is being replaced with Chinnamma and the show is moving on.

Well and good. But according to latest report in the leading newspaper around 203 people die of Shock due to demise of the Chief Minister. It is quite hard to digest the numbers and party to which the Chief minister belongs has decided to compensate for such deaths.

The question remains, why is that people die of a shock and grief of a chief minister? Ultimate answer would be love on the beloved leader.

How much is too good to bestow the love on a leader rather on their policies and philosophies. That leads to discussion on difference between being a supporter and a fan. 

In a college, students elect a class representative, who is well versed to communicate their ideas/ decisions to the higher authorities and act as a point of contact to the entire class. Students respect him/her for the role taken and thank him/her whole hearted. Its not difficult to replicate the same on the political level.

But things get complicated when the class representative instead of doing the required simple job involves himself in non-required complex jobs like doing some kind of dis-information campaign or becomes a medium of extortion for some additional marks/ influence. The class segregates into pro leader and against leader resulting in polarisation and things get complicated further.

So when looked into above prism of things, the so called "love in politics" turns out to be a complicated form of doing politics and polarising the people to such an extent that you make them die for you. Is it fair? In other words a person who merely was to act as a voice of people to understand their problem and solve the issues, when turns out to become a power house to create a different level of power circles around you, its a complicated version of democracy resulting in unequal development of the society.

It is not fault of the politicians, instead it the fault of we common people who try to extract a demi-god of the leader and complicate the entire process which serves no real purpose except for show off. 

I would like to add a disclaimer. The views expressed are aimed towards spreading awareness on "simple democracy" rather than a complex version. The incidents taken into consideration are for proving the same and not to hurt any individual or political organisation or their die hard followers