The return of "majority wins"

Growing up, if more than two of us wanted to do some thing and we're divided, we just take what the majority of the group wants, determined by the easiest form of voice vote, and do that... and the semi-teasing in-your-face statement we make to someone who wanted otherwise is, "majority wins". When we said it then, and as we look back at it now, it was a cute memory of growing up. Unfortunately, all cute memories from when we were were growing up become stale and corny if we use them in the exact same way in responsible, adult situations, like nation, for example. 

India is a parliamentary democracy, though mass voter sentiment is that of a presidential democratic process. A good contemporary example of this when everyone is "voting for Modi" when Modi himself is contesting from one constituency, and not all 543. Every BJP supporter in 540 constituencies doesn't have the privilege of Modi being their constituency's BJP candidate - as much as they relish the possibility. But I digress. A parliamentary democracy functions via the majority that allows 50.1 percentage of the group gets to completely demolish what 49.9 percentage of them want. While the ratio needn't be that extreme, it's a privilege they're accorded by the "majority wins" logic. 

It's that simple you say? Uh huh! But any just, reasonable form of governance must include the recognition of all voices. The post-winning chant cannot be that they've "won fair and square" so the detractors and opposition should shut up. Nobody loses in a democracy. The only thing that happens is that a government is elected. Any mention of victory and loss is either technical or a misnomer. These things need a better set of vocabulary to describe them. 

If people seriously think they've "won", apart from these two explanations, they've converted the gravity of voice, vote and representation into a popularity contest. The best example here is a sports match with two teams cheering their throats off for each other. Neither side is wrong. It's merely their choice of favourite. That one has a better chance to win doesn't mean that the factors behind that chance deserve merit, based on just, good, healthy principles. As a matter of fact, it is the very merit via these principles that makes a choice the right choice. 

Just like how you play a sport can decide your victory, it is so in elections too. But a game lasts till it's played and then another one is and on this goes. It's pure entertainment and passion with no relevance whatsoever to life after the match is over for the crowd. With politics, this is differentiating factor. Politics can ruin or make their lives for the next few years. The choice they make in voting decides that. The present system has made it a majority-minority one. It's supposed to be a voice one. A worst case scenario of 50.1:49.9 should not alienate the lesser group. 

What prevents that from happening is leaders being agendas to people, not people to them. In a world, where everyone indiscriminately lives off/for/by food, happiness and security, discrimination in what you promise shouldn't even be a factor. What you offer one (once in power) should be designed so because it's as good for any other. Once we can achieve this, if we have more problems with the voting choices in front of us, it is because our ideas don't make rational, economical or people sense. They get ideological and tip the balance to one side doing a different version of that discrimination: serving only some but with bias based on individual favour towards them - ripe ground for crony capitalism, scams and such. 

If those eyeing for power through your vote become regular, everyday people to their country's people, you wouldn't have to be split over ideas about capitalism, socialism, economics and whether (and how) they should be practiced. This will discard the privilege and view of these factors to a wider one sans the person's own natural bias and privilege. And, this can be recognised if candidates really walked in the shoes of all the different kinds of people they seek to represent to know, feel and understand their position, place and difficulties - each class, caste and community. We wouldn't have to base our ideas of whether progress is happening (or that it must certainly be happening) because of a textbook theory. 

We would real-life sympathize with those who indeed don't have, and those whose worlds and communities that are held-back, and understand where and what kind of handouts would be necessary, even if it defeats principles at the core of our idea of a capitalistic economy. We would understand the freedom that the same kind of economy brings and learn to pair it with our ideas of (what seems to some as "unearned") welfare so that we get the best combination of what will work better for the ones who don't have. The moment you move away from this balance, you will get people divided over one isolated way tipping everything to one side, and the majority who vote for that idea win. We have to move towards finding a way to serve everyone - some more, some less depending on what they need, not based on how much each one gets. In a world that only majority wins, democracy with a voice and full representation loses.