The art of writing is a tiresome habit of indulgence. Giving sentences coherence can however, become a habit in disguise. However, what occupies my mind currently is the concept of "Wikileaks", "Cosmetic Democracy", "26/11 and Kasab". I would, with my limited rendition of the concept of democracy on the whole, will try to delve into all 3 and link them to the broader spectrum.
It's imperative for us to ask what's idealistic and what can be realistically expected from the government in a democracy. The concept of "By the people, Of the people and For the people" is passe. It wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that each government is motivated sectionally by self-preservation and largely by the incentive of staying in power and this stay in power can only be achieved when civilians believe en masse that the tax they are paying is being used in a manner befitting the stature they are conferred upon when politicians come begging for votes before elections. Anything lower than that would be the country "visible" development and mostly they are ok with that too. Eventuality for any government is to interfere in people's scheme of things and this is where the dichotomy reigns supreme. A good government is said to be the one which governs the least. However, if you don't govern you don't justify your position of power. This is where the concept of a "Cosmetic Democracy" comes in, which I will come to later.
The Ruling government has two fundamental problems at any stage- Expectations of people and "THE OPPOSITION". The last term is what keeps a democracy acutely steadfast in it's portrayal of being a voice of the people. Without a strong opposition, a government's functionality is as good as corroded. Herein again lies the concept of what extent of opposition to a government's policies or acts is really justified or deemed prudent of public view. The catch is that the govenment is accountable and the public is fickle. No amount of semantics can delay the inevitability of a government expose that went a step too far in issues pertaining to security of the nation. That's precisely the reason why a Julian Assange is tormented into submission because his exposition reflects the dark underbelly of secrecy that shrouds half the government field operations.
The concept of Wikileaks has to be handled deftly and with care. Making Assange a scapegoat or targeting him into submission can propel the citizens of the world into thinking him to be a real-life messaih of truth. That is definitely not the case here. What I view is a clear incision between two relatively unconnected plots of Democracy and a riotous exposition of classified documents. There are some things the public is better off not knowing and this is what Assange and his cronies failed to realize. No government in this world is a safe haven for it's bureaucrats and diplomats. Yet, every nation greets it's counterpart with a fake honesty bordering on the obsolete. This is called "International Affairs" and it needs the fake smile and dishonest handshake to keep it from falling into chaos. Wikileaks has disturbed that balance by acting as an unruly "OPPOSITION" which is far from what the public needs to know. An opposition should know what to oppose while Wikileaks simply doesn't understand that concept, giving it a double-edged potency which makes it a cosmetic democracy because the government is powerless to stop the crumbling order.
Heading home, we have a man caught on camera gunning down 166 people with his accomplices. We have a body of evidence against him. We have a "rarest-of-rare" case against him. He should be hanged beyond doubt and this is not an emotional outburst. Yet, we give him a right to appeal against a judicial judgement INSPITE of the fact that the kind of evidence we possess and his own acceptance on camera about carrying out 26/11. Question is, does this beast even have a right to life? Yes he does because we live in a cosmetic democracy parading as the world's largest democracy, A democracy where the people's wants come at the bottom of the ladder. A democracy which is psedo-secular but acts as secular. A democracy of 1.1 billion unable to defend itself.
What is the functional unit of a democracy?
Who is a citizen?