Sunday, September 25, 2016

Democracy the fabric of propriety and justice.



Judges are meant to serve the people, criticising judges is not a crime In a democracy the people are supreme and all authorities, whether Prime Minister or  Ministers,judges, legislators, bureaucrats, police, army and so on are servants of the people. Since the people are the masters and judges their servants, the people have a right to criticise judges just as a master has the right to criticise his servant.kes are rising like never before. In an earlier age the democracies of the day went about their business of apparently being led by the wishes of the people while in fact working within a highly regulated framework that did not leave too much to chance. The political discourse emphasized a restrained and formal practice of democracy; the process was governed by a tight set of protocols and rules, and was presided over with a comprehensive system of checks and balances. Politics was a formally enacted costume drama, much as was the case with the judiciary, and came bound with the fabric of propriety and justice.
Over the years, across the world and particularly in India, while much of the structure of politics remains intact, there has been a sea change in the culture of politics as it is practiced on the ground. Every element in the mix has grown a little murkier, the interests of each having got intertwined, and politics has become an entrenched system that is highly resistant to challenge. The language of politics too has coarsened significantly, and there is a lot of anger going around, resulting in political choices that seemed to be very unlikely just a few years back. Social media, by giving voice to the millions who were earlier forced only to listen, has deepened democratic participation while simultaneously enabling a shallower political discourse.
The public has been urged not to make unfounded criticisms on the judiciary through the social media as this will undermine the administration, Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria said today. is incorrect, totally unacceptable in a democracy, and violates the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article Constitution of Malaysia
Anwar's imprisonment a aggravated pimping in Malaysian Judiaciary 
 John Malott's comment 'a damning indictment on the sad state' of the court.  is what is meant by an objective, factual and logical analysis of the facts of the case.
Astrologers remain in high demand no matter how often they are proved wrong. That’s true of the media too.  Those who failed to analyse or predict voter behaviour before  were holding forth the next day on the implications for future elections. widely seen as strong leaders who will end the old corrupt politics and deliver good governance. as alpha males who act swiftly and decisively (and so are also called authoritarian and dictatorial are crowd pleasers and charismatic spinners of dreams. But the media has highlighted their many differences much more than their similarities.Many analysts have tried to fit their election analyses into their old ideological frameworks. Some claim the poor have triumphed, But the media has highlighted their many differences much more than their similarities.It is a damning indictment on the sad state of the highest court in the land whose reputation, professionalism, competence and integrity has been compromised, so as to make it a laughing stock of the judicial world.It clearly reflects the sad state of affairs of this minority government clinging to power by orchestrating the false conviction of the leading opposition figure of the country.Najib"Can you name one foreign government, one international human rights organisation, one international newspaper, one foreign think-tank, or one overseas academician who agrees with the decision - and who concurs with your assertion that the verdict was the just conclusion of an independan independent judiciary?"  Najib confided that it was God who had ordained 
 the ugly corruption of  Attorney-general (AG) Abdul Gani Patail office
"What was the motive for closing two eyes on Altantuya's murderers?", "How did the government use a gambling kingpin to assist in securing the security of our country?", and "Why was a senior minister asking the Malays to boycott only Chinese traders?"no action taken  former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mahathir is doing a pretty good job on his own in keeping the pressure on 1Mlaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
There is a comforting if untested notion that all this a part of an evolutionary process, and that things will improve with time. The digital world is new, and as of now, a wild unregulated space, without adequate safeguards and requisite social conventions, including a reward and punishment system. This, it can be argued, will inevitably become more rule-bound, as we discover the costs of our freedoms, and some of rabid beaviour on display will get toned down. The rise of populist leaders who feed on anxiety and create divisions have existed before, but history tells us that these are almost always transient phases, a periodic itch that societies scratch furiously, but briefly.
The question is, left to ourselves, will democracies move towards greater individual freedoms and away from divisions based on religion, race and ethnicity? As the hold of the elite weakens, does the politics of democracy becoming a purer version of itself or does it get attracted to its baser side? This is a very big bet to make. Is the emergence of a more populist and strident form of leadership a pointer to our destination, or is it part of our learning curve?
There is enough reason to be pessimistic. Structurally, media- which determines how we see the world by making it visible to us in a particular way, is geared to heighten polarities. Social media resembles an arena where warring tribes engage in relentless hostilities, with ever escalating rancor. The state is increasingly intolerant when it comes to dissent – surveillance and pre-emptive action is on the rise and NGOs worldwide are under pressure. Media, the market and politics are all pointing in the same direction. Each increasingly privileges the desires of people and caters uncritically to these. The big ideas that defined democracies- equality, justice, freedom of expression are all under attack- not from non-democratic forces but from the instruments and processes that are highly democratic.
The effect of media can be imagined in another way too. Theorist Tom Pettit proposed that the last 500 years have been what he termed as the Gutenberg Parenthesis, that began with Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press and continued till the advent of the Internet, which he argues represents a return to a more oral consciousness. The authority of the printed word represented at its pinnacle in the form of the book, is eroding as more oral codes of communication are gaining dominance. We are ‘going forward to the past’ in terms of media and its impact on society. While Pettit sees this as an overthrow of the tyranny of structure as imposed by formalized ideas of knowledge, his formulation could be used to imagine other possibilities.
At its most basic level, the era of print made knowledge more easily accessible and freely circulated. It helped shape a common currency of ideas, some of which were privileged as shared ideals that society must aspire to. The culture fostered by the print world emphasized rationality and logic. It also alienated human beings from the world that they lived in, but this detachment helped foster many of the ideals that have propelled liberal thought. The coming of television and now the internet has meant that we have returned in some form to our oral roots.
If we were to accept this axis of analysis, then it could be argued that liberalism and the idea of modernity that drives it is not an inevitable progression based on the human instinct for freedom, but a development contingent on what the dominant media form of the time is.
To reduce complex social and political phenomena to a single variable is rarely meaningful or useful, but in this case, it poses a question that is both provocative and plausible. The question in effect is whether progressive liberal ideals were an accident of media; an interruption that is now petering out. Recent events of the world might not be part of a cycle, but be indicative of a longer term shift towards a more tribal consciousness. It is too soon to imagine what kind of changes lie in store, for the codes of a digitally powered society are still in the process of being formed. But liberalism as we know it might not merely be under attack, but might possibly not survive the changes that we are seeing. The ideals that democracies take for granted might be up for negotiation, not merely for now but for good. It is not a comforting thought, which is why it is worth thinking about.To the five judges,a sadomasochistic “romantic chew on the above statement, and isn't it a slap on your faces? drawing gobsmacked audiences, but the transcripts of the DSAI Judgement, perhaps, make for far more interesting reading.saw his political career crash spectacularly when he was accused of sexually assaulting readmore Anwar's imprisonment the five judges and Shafee Haramjadah God’s chosen messenger for an independent judiciary?

No comments:

Post a Comment