In India politicians often do not represent the views of their voters because they are often elected based on identity, not policies. The key thing to note here is that this is not due to the structure of the system (which is democratic); rather; it is due to how the game is played -- no amount of improvements to the system (short of a direct democracy?) or laws can change this since this is a matter of how the people are voting.
Direct democracy is not a solution either. That will lead us straight to the tyranny of the majority. The religious and intellectual minorities will suffer straight-away. I won't elaborate on that. Next, it will be the wealthy. What would stop the illiterate majority from voting to take away all the wealth of the 1%?
The only way out I see is with the Supreme Court taking drastic measures to clean up the constitution. I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.
Totally agree that direct democracy won't help. I'm saying it is the only way that you have a chance of getting rid of the kind of identity politics present in India by changing the system itself. I made that point just to highlight how the undemocratic nature of identity politics was not a feature of the system. I mean, with a direct democracy propaganda can and will still entice people to vote against their own interests, and minorities will be in a bad situation as you said. It introduces new problems; but it is the one way you have a chance of getting rid of this problem (identity politics) by changing the system. The actual fix for this lies in social change.
Nope, it is isn't. Comparison between UK & India with vastly different citizenry, laws, enforcement and track record is a non starter.
> You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, but even if you weren't...
I wish to bring your statement forward: it is spot on here!
You're right. We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre without the democracy in question being available, i.e. a democracy that stands for: equity, representation, freedom and justice. Note, it includes free speech.
Is it not a fact that people were killed or instigated to be killed by the state then?
That is not the claim I contested. Nor is it the statement you made, which was:
> [Modi] is well known to have massacred colleagues based on their beliefs/position
though it seems that you have now moved the goalposts to:
> We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre [because of a lack of free speech and democracy]
It's best not to confuse the liberalism tradition of the west with democracy.
What about uninformed bullshitting speech that cause voters to not make the 'well-informed' choice?
What is the forcing function that moves voter toward making informed choices, whatever informed may be?
Education.
If you only have one form of speech because others are not allowed, how is any voter to tell if it's bullshit?
Of course, we cross into the treasonous water of the state possibly banning views that it didn't like, rather than simply uninformed views.
You also risk succumbing to your own biases and excluding information that is correct. If that happens and the truth comes out, which it always does, your state eventually becomes unstable.
You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, to the point of spreading blatantly false propaganda[0]. But even if you weren't, this has nothing to do with democracy or free speech. (Nor is it particularly unusual in democratic countries).
> India isn't really a full democracy; it says it is a "democracy" as long as it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or even understands what free speech is all about.
"Democracy" doesn't mean "free speech". And in fact, India's de jure protections on free speech are far greater than (for example) what the UK grants.
[0] While Modi has some figurative skeletons in his closet, it's completely wrong to say 'it is well-known that Modi has massacred colleagues based on their beliefs'.