Skip to main content

paradoxes of democracy

 Paradoxes of democracy

The unresolved paradoxes of democracy are said to be endemic to all forms of democracy.

  1. The first one given by Richard Wolheim (1984) “A voter believes, and has good reason to believe, that a ban on deer hunting is the right policy, and therefore votes for the ban. The majority votes against the ban. The voter,  being a reasonable person and a democrat, must now believe contradictory things: that the  ban is justified (by the best reasons) and that it is not justified (because the majority opposed it). The voter is caught in a clear paradox, according to Wolheim’s view.” A person has a reason to oppose a policy but the majority on the other hand supports the policy and through democratic methods the policy gets implemented. Now because a person is a rational being as well as a democrat, is torn between two ideas- a) he uses his rationality, takes all factors into consideration while deciding his conclusion or b) being a democrat he/she will believe that what decisions are taken by the democracy is the best one. The decision taken by democracy was in direct contrast to what he/she personally through rationality chose to decide, so in this situation both of these decisions must be followed by him and this leads to a paradoxical situation. So one needs to console oneself when one knows that their views are correct but have to go with the popular view of democracy, the policy would be implemented even if it is wrong because it has been voted for by the popular majority. The idea is knowing that something wrong may be implemented if the majority votes for it. The idea is that even if some opinion is wrong, the person accepts that wrong policy because it was a decision decided by a democratic deliberation. Even if the majority is wrong we must understand that  the majority by its power has the right  to implement the wrong policy.  For example- beef ban in certain states have been implemented due to majority support, the ones living there against the beef ban must keep their beliefs and accept the policy even though they are not in favour of it. This paradox also is one of the many reasons why we have so many caste and religion based poll alliances, for the sole reason to mobilise the votes of these groups. 

  2. The second paradox of democracy was implemented by Anthony Downs (1957). He goes on to elaborate that “no citizen is excluded from the benefits of election results or from the more general bodies of continuing the democratic system itself.” Let's take an example of India here, India is a densely populated country with about 912 million people of the voting age. One single individual’s vote won’t make such of a difference in the outcome of the elections, will one vote change anything? Is a question that many registered voters who chose not to vote reason out. The process of casting votes demand time, energy and money to go to the polling booths and caste a vote. The minuscule weightage of one vote makes spending time money and energy quite irrational, cost effective and uneconomical to a person. There are two distinct situations here, so if everyone thinks rationally and comes to the same conclusion that it is irrational to vote than nobody votes, the next that people want to vote are irrational. Anthony Downs tries to say here that in this paradox voting and rationality cannot coexist. Some notable rational choice theorist, William Riker and Peter Ordershook (1968) bring to terms a “utilitarian account of human beings as cost benefit calculators” saying that the these large number of voters vote by assuming a moral  satisfaction of living up to democratic moral duties and democratic ethic of casting votes, thus voting is a rational exercise keeping in mind the utilitarian approach. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more