Democracy and progress become inter-related when the system becomes efficient enough to give everyone the room to march forward, not just select few. When individuals are held accountable for their actions, culture of self-correction in the system reigns, only then do we call it a 'Positive Democracy'.
To define a not so positive democracy is far more easier. A democracy which is to consolidate power, to create obstacles for the sake of being populist. When actors, and the people who are to keep a check are no more responsible in delivering, that is called a not so positive democracy.
I believe it was important to explain my ideas so that the readers to be cognizant of my faith in jamhooriat.
As I've laid down my barometer for making a judgement about the system, lets test our own country's politics first.
- Is the democracy practised in our country enabling the civil society to come forward and take ownership and be responsible for their actions? Is it about delegating or consolidating the powers?
- Are the political actors in our country democratic themselves?
- Do the political actors have any vision to educate, and make the masses aware of our problems?
- Are the political actors not part of the government, but in parliament doing anything positive or contributing positively to make the system efficient other than delivering fiery speeches and make hue and cry over same old corruption, bad governance, mud-slinging etcetra ?
- Is the media acting responsibly as it is now a pillar of the state? Is it educating people or it is busy earning revenue by sensationalism? Is it playing any role in integrating the country or disintegrating the country? Is it telling us the facts?
I leave it to your judgement to decide whether we're living in a positive democracy. Another way that I put not so positive democracy is demo-dictocracy. However, in the end I'd say that best dictatorship is worse than worst democracy.
We want democracy, not demo-dictocracy!