Thursday, July 12, 2012

On Democracy

Let us assume a newly formed state consisting of two political parties 'A' and 'B'. Our party 'A' first comes to power and performs miserably in its first term, thereby paving the way for 'B'. 'B' on the other hand performs exceptionally well and gets re-elected for its second term.

Let us consider that B has inhuman efficiency and forever it performs very well on all development fronts (at least it meets the low expectations of the society).

So, how can 'A' ever come back to Power?

Let us assume 'A' is exceedingly wise in the matter of Polity and hence evaluates the real alternatives it has while campaigning for the 4th elections.

'A' cannot portray developmental administration as their forte. So based on this itself it can never come back to power. They cannot also blame the incumbents for neglect.

We find ourselves in a utopian society. The only way 'A' can come back to power is through an imbalance in the delicately balanced Utopian society. The same can be done through ideological or religious turmoil. And through this they may come to power. This same cycle shall always continue.

So, if we have two good and efficient (as in for their own good) political parties, their eternal aim would be to keep the state in a condition of imbalance, owing to which they may hope to come back to power in a foreseeable future. If any state does reach Utopia, democracy - as we know it - will cease to exist.

Coincidentally, it aligns very well with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which in simple word states, that entropy of a system always increases!

Friday, July 6, 2012

The Balancing Act!

I find it rather ironic, that the balancing acts performed by the society in general is through imbalance! Consider for example reservation. Reservation is required in order for upliftment of the weaker or historically exploited sections of the society. The argument in favor of the same is a long term (though flawed, in my opinion) vision of achieving an egalitarian state.

I find such a situation paradoxical, since in order to bring equality, people have to be treated unequally. To remove discrimination, the historically favored class is discriminated against. The only difference between the discrimination of the past and the so called "non-discrimination" or "equal opportunity" situation of the present is that the prey has become the predator - the discriminator has become the discriminated.

But perhaps, the opinion of some section of our society (at the top of our discriminatory food chain - the ruler class - which is constant, though its membership may keep revolving between different classes) may after all be true - that the sins of the fathers need to be borne by the children, thereby justifying my feelings regarding a probable belief of theirs - Those in a position to sin, must do so; for that position may not last forever and then you might be sinned against.