democracy now

One brilliant thing about living in a different country is how you're able to step back and look objectively at how a nation works. For me, observing how the UK system of government and economy functions has been fascinating, and it has given me a point of comparison to look at India as well.
And I'm not the only one.
When I went down earlier today to get my sixth cup of coffee, I walked bang into an argument between my flatmates Jenner and Alex. Alex was getting worked up about the state of politics in India, and about how the government does such a rotten job of governing, while Jenner - one of the most intelligent thinkers I have met in UK so far - was saying that there's no point in complaining, because we are not, as individuals, really prepared to do anything about it. He went on to say that if he is against the wall, and has to pay a bribe to get a passport or a visa, he would certainly do it... and can any of us genuinely say that we wouldn't do the same?
As the argument went on (and I jumped right in, despite having an important exam the next day) it got me thinking about democracy.
My argument is that the fundamental principle behind democracy is not simply that 'people vote for a government'. It's not that simple. I think the basis of democracy is that once voted, the government will do everything to make sure that it is voted into power again the next term.
If this were not the case, then we are simply putting the power of the state into the hands of rogues for a five year period - and they can do what they want.
As an extension of that theory - anything that a government does is a basic reflection of what the people want. So whether its massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, or US going to war in Afghanistan - much as we may hate to admit it, this is what the people want. My professor from college points out that the Gujarat issue happened a few months before the elections, and as soon as Modi was voted back into power, it stopped. It's a compelling argument.
Alex was quick to mention that if the US war in Afghanistan is what the people want, it's only because the government played on their minds and created that fear in them, to force them to accept that going to war was the only option.
Fair enough - but then we need to ask the question, why was the US govt so desperate to go to war? (and still is, come to that - Iran seems to be in their gunsights now).
You have to go back to the old maxim - who stands to benefit?
It's the companies. Forbes was foolish enough to go public with the statement that if US were to win in Iraq, the nation would have all its debt to France and Germany cancelled, and the entire rehabilitation programme would be set up by American companies.
Not to mention oil at the prices they determine.
And Bush's government leans heavily on the industry for support. And who owns the shares in those companies?
It always comes back to the people, unfortunately.

Jenner draws a parellel in UK. All I've read about since I came to UK was that the NHS (National Health Service - since UK is a welfare state, everyone gets free diagnosis, and in some cases, free treatment) is in complete shambles. Jenner says everyone will complain vociferously about how the NHS sucks, but noone is willing to allow health to be privatised, because noone wants to start paying for medical tests. Sure, it is paid anyway through tax, but at least there is a gradation of payment (i.e. the rich pay more).
Jenner's view is that the concept of NHS is nothing but a political ploy. I tend to agree, but I don't know enough on the subject.

Back to the war in Afghanistan, I think UK's involvement in the war is definitely one that breaks my 'it always comes back to the people' theory. As soon as Blair announced that UK would step in, there were spontaneous demonstrations on the streets, much more so than in US. In fact, the mood of the nation seemed to be anti-war.
I think it's possible that it comes to the fact that UK has billions of dollars debt to the US, and cannot really afford to lose that ally, whereas France and Germany, as full members of the European Union, have less to lose in that respect.

However, the one problem for the UK-govt is the BBC. Let's face it - a lot of the views of the people are affected by the news they receive, and for me, the BBC is the most unique, intriguing concept. Sponsored by the government but independent.
In US, on the other hand, all the broadcast channels are owned by large corporations, so once it was wartime, it was in the interests of the corporates for the war to go on, so all the channels went pro-war. In UK, the BBC is comparitively neutral.
I really admire the system behind the BBC, and I even said that you can't imagine the Indian government news channel being as objective. My sister was quick to remind me of Pranoy Roy dragging all the politicians over the coals on Doordarshan back in the day. I stand corrected.

On that theme, I've also realised just how much we have to be proud of in the system of government in India. There's tons of shit there, but where there are people there will be shit. In UK, it's disguised more effectively.
The only difference, the thing that really stands out in the Western system, is the level of accountability. If a government official fucks up, the press are all over him/her. If the government releases a document for a particular decision, the media will contact sources and find out if it's true, and expose the falsehood in big bold headlines.
And if the media gets too big for its boots, you can sue, and sue big. Media law here (and I just wrote four exams on it so I should know) is complex, and journalists are accountable for what they print. I don't think we in India have reached that level yet. Some newspapers refuse to print corrections even when they've made glaring errors because they know they can get away with it.

But what we DO have, is a greater system of representation. It's not just democrats vs. republicans or labour vs conservatives...
Yes, we do have some parties who seem to be doing us no good. The Marxist party will refuse to allow us to do a nuclear power deal with the US, and ten years down the line they will be the ones complaining that there is a power shortage in India.
But on the other hand, they might be right. I definitely dont want to be in a situation where the Indian government has to enter a US war because it owes money, when a majority of Indians don't want the war.

And why is all of this so important? I just feel that if I'm right that a government reflects its people, then we should get all the information before voting any party into power. We should know whats going on behind the scenes, not just what the government tells us.
And once again, I don't think I'm the only one. As I watched the Bourne Ultimatum for the second time, earlier today, (fantastic movie, one of the slickest action flicks in the recent past) I realised that the world has gone beyond inane messages like 'with great power comes great responsibility'. The question now is, do we even know why we are killing whoever we are killing? I think it's a question that common people everywhere are doing their best to find answers for.