Building a consensus
What would you call a broad national consensus? To keep their immoral
acts protected under wraps, it is on this day, the 20th of august, did
the government through the PM spoke of such a term. I wonder it is
righteousness call or another attempt to save some disaster from
themselves. I never heard them speak that when they made so many other
legislation.
Nevermind. Question hangs out-- what would it be anyway-- the broad
national consensus ??
In a democracy , consensus are hardest to achieve. We know it.!
Plainly, then, this attempt to achieve consensus is their way of
saving some big disaster from happening. But in itself it proves one
thing for sure, that the government keeps it own standards of 'strong'
which are different from what the intellectual people think 'strong'
should truely be.
Nevertheless, consensus are usually build-able on objective statements
alone. for example, sun rises everyday within latitudes 70 deg N and
S. There needs a lot of qualifying terms for making an accurate
objective statement for achieving a consensus.
The task, then, is to gather lots of observations on the matter to
form the 'Statement of Facts'. It could be like: people want to
erradicate corruption; corruption has deprived some sections of
society; corruption has benefited some sections. Whether the benefited
lot is larger in count or the deprived lot. Whether the benefited lot
also demands erradication of corruption; whether the benefited lot
consisted of politicians , businessmen and bureaucrats? The employee
section and the unemployed have always suffered? Whether corruption
is damaging for our collective social interest as a nation? Whether
anti corruption law has potential to affect other social objectives
such a Reservation laws, minority protection? and if yes, how and how
much? How much of desire we have for a drugs, terrorism and organised
crime free state, and how much it is adversely impacted by subsiding
the anti corruption laws? How much will the people be willing to lay
their lives for when fully in knowledge of the fact that their
sacrifices will still never be able to free the country of such
menace? how much of a free developed and leader nation we are willing
to become at world level with repeated episodes of public corruption
inside our home?
broad national consensus is hard to achieve and a call for it at this
hour is nothing but attempt to defend some vested interest. Shamefully
enough, the world is watching our government doing that. They who made
things such as UNCAC , know what such acts of any government imply.
Democracy and Consensus
The cause of democracy is to allow people to have different opinion, but system must confirm to the laws of nature for it to sustain. In the Brittannica's Encyclopedia, topic: History of Philosophy, this is why it has been suggested that all democratic systems will eventually have to progress towards adoption of natural laws, which means free from influence of Cultures and Religion, and therefore necessarily 'Secular' and 'non-Communist', 'non-Socialist'. Consensus and Righteousness will itself prevail. Only the issues of Arts can be matter of opinion. Issues of Science and logic work by consensus. As people will learn to translate issues of Arts into issues of Science and Logic, disharmony due to difference in opinions will weed away. Democratic Systems will also necessarily tend to be more of Evolutionist work, and less of God-Believers.."Secularism" as a necessary condition for consensus-building, and conformation to natural laws will promote this tendency further.
acts protected under wraps, it is on this day, the 20th of august, did
the government through the PM spoke of such a term. I wonder it is
righteousness call or another attempt to save some disaster from
themselves. I never heard them speak that when they made so many other
legislation.
Nevermind. Question hangs out-- what would it be anyway-- the broad
national consensus ??
In a democracy , consensus are hardest to achieve. We know it.!
Plainly, then, this attempt to achieve consensus is their way of
saving some big disaster from happening. But in itself it proves one
thing for sure, that the government keeps it own standards of 'strong'
which are different from what the intellectual people think 'strong'
should truely be.
Nevertheless, consensus are usually build-able on objective statements
alone. for example, sun rises everyday within latitudes 70 deg N and
S. There needs a lot of qualifying terms for making an accurate
objective statement for achieving a consensus.
The task, then, is to gather lots of observations on the matter to
form the 'Statement of Facts'. It could be like: people want to
erradicate corruption; corruption has deprived some sections of
society; corruption has benefited some sections. Whether the benefited
lot is larger in count or the deprived lot. Whether the benefited lot
also demands erradication of corruption; whether the benefited lot
consisted of politicians , businessmen and bureaucrats? The employee
section and the unemployed have always suffered? Whether corruption
is damaging for our collective social interest as a nation? Whether
anti corruption law has potential to affect other social objectives
such a Reservation laws, minority protection? and if yes, how and how
much? How much of desire we have for a drugs, terrorism and organised
crime free state, and how much it is adversely impacted by subsiding
the anti corruption laws? How much will the people be willing to lay
their lives for when fully in knowledge of the fact that their
sacrifices will still never be able to free the country of such
menace? how much of a free developed and leader nation we are willing
to become at world level with repeated episodes of public corruption
inside our home?
broad national consensus is hard to achieve and a call for it at this
hour is nothing but attempt to defend some vested interest. Shamefully
enough, the world is watching our government doing that. They who made
things such as UNCAC , know what such acts of any government imply.
Democracy and Consensus
The cause of democracy is to allow people to have different opinion, but system must confirm to the laws of nature for it to sustain. In the Brittannica's Encyclopedia, topic: History of Philosophy, this is why it has been suggested that all democratic systems will eventually have to progress towards adoption of natural laws, which means free from influence of Cultures and Religion, and therefore necessarily 'Secular' and 'non-Communist', 'non-Socialist'. Consensus and Righteousness will itself prevail. Only the issues of Arts can be matter of opinion. Issues of Science and logic work by consensus. As people will learn to translate issues of Arts into issues of Science and Logic, disharmony due to difference in opinions will weed away. Democratic Systems will also necessarily tend to be more of Evolutionist work, and less of God-Believers.."Secularism" as a necessary condition for consensus-building, and conformation to natural laws will promote this tendency further.
Comments
Post a Comment