Every country in the world has come under some kind of democratic structure. Liberal democracy has been developed in countries like the US, Britain, France and Canada, while in the USSR China, Vietnam and Eastern Europe are dominant. The fate of people living in liberal democratic (so-called democratic) countries is not as misleading as in communist countries, because in the communist countries, political and economic systems are put on society by party officials, which is human suffering and severe psycho-economic exploitation. Liberal democracy and socialist democracy can be seen as forms of political democracy, as these systems are based on economic and political centralization.
In countries where democracy is fashionable today, people have been deceived to believe that there is no better system than political democracy. Political democracy undoubtedly gave veto rights, but it suppressed the right to economic equality. Consequently, there are significant economic differences between the rich and the poor, the inequality of inequalities is the purchasing power of people, unemployment, chronic food shortages, poverty and social uncertainty.
The type of democracy widespread in India is also a political democracy and has proved to be a unique exploitation system. The Indian constitution was created by three groups of exploiters: the British exploiters, the imperialists of India and the ruling parties representing Indian capitalists. All the provisions of the Indian Constitution were drafted in the interests of these opportunists. Just to catch the masses, people were given the general right to vote. Millions of Indians are poor, superstitious and illiterate, but exploiters, such as false promises, intimidation, serious abuse of administrative power, and voting rigging, repeatedly win voters. This is the farce of democracy. After forming the government, they have ample opportunity to pamper themselves for five years in raging corruption and political tyranny. In the subsequent elections, either at provincial or state level, the same absurdity is repeated.
This type of political opportunism continues in India since independence. Over the past thirty-five years, political parties have maintained that India must follow the democratic system in order to achieve economic equality with European industrialized countries. Based on this argument, America and Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union are mentioned. Political leaders are encouraging voters to vote in favor of electoral times so that the country's starving masses can benefit from the advanced economy. But if the election ends, the exploitation of ordinary people continues in the crimes of political democracy, and other areas of social life are completely negligible. Today, millions of Indian citizens are living with the minimum standards of life and are struggling to get the right food, clothing, housing, education and medical care, while the competent people are moving in enormous wealth and luxury.
One of the most obvious defects of democracy is that it is based on universal suffrage. This means that the right to vote depends on age. Once people have reached a certain age, it is assumed that they have the necessary skills to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the issues during the elections and to select the best candidate. However, there are many over the voting age who have little choice or interest and do not know social and economic issues. In many cases, they are more likely to vote for the party than the candidate, and the electoral propaganda or the false promises of politicians are also suffering. Those who have not reached the voting time are often better able to choose the best candidate than those with voting rights. So age cannot be the yardstick of voting rights.
Regardless of whether the candidate is elected, it usually depends on the parties, the political advocacy and the election expenses. In some cases it also depends on antisocial practices. Throughout the world, money plays a crucial role in the electoral process, and in almost all cases, only those who are rich and powerful can hope to secure an elected office. In cases where it is not mandatory, only a small proportion of the population is often involved in the electoral process.
A precondition for the success of democracy is morality, education and socio-economic-political consciousness. Leaders need to be especially moral people, otherwise the well-being of society will be compromised. Today, however, in most democracies, they have been elected to the power of dubious nature and self-interest. Even the bandits and murderers choose the election and form the government.
In almost every country in the world, the masses have no political consciousness. The cunning, erudite politicians take advantage of this man and the attainment of power. They resort to immoral practices such as bribery, voting, staging and buying votes, and are not in the elections. Consequently, the moral standard of society is diminishing and honest, competent people are placed in the background. Moral leaders have less chance of winning the election, as election results are characterized by financial incentives, intimidation, and raw power. In the current democratic system, all kinds of immoral and corrupt practices provide an opportunity for perversion of society. The essence of the current system is that it benefits the capitalists and directs the administration to immoral and corrupt forces.
The farce of democracy was compared to a baby show where a handful of huge hungry politicians pull the strings behind the scene. In liberal democracies, capitalists manipulate the media, such as radio, television and newspapers, while in socialist democracies, bureaucrats lead the country to the brink of destruction. In both forms of democracy, there is little opportunity for honest, competent leaders in society and there is virtually no opportunity for economic liberation of people.
Political democracy has become a great disappointment for the people of the world. Promises the appearance of an era of peace, prosperity and equality, but in reality it creates criminals, encourages exploitation and throws ordinary people into the depths of sadness and suffering.
The days of political democracy are numbered. PROUT demands economic democracy, not political democracy. In order for democracy to be successful, economic power must be held in the hands of the public and everyone must have the minimum standards of life. This is the only way to ensure people's economic liberation. PROUT's slogan: "To end exploitation, we need economic democracy, not political democracy."
In economic democracy, economic and political power is twofold. That is, PROUT supports political centralization and economic decentralization. Political power is given by morals, but economic power is provided by local people. The main purpose of the administration is to eliminate obstacles and obstacles that prevent people's economic needs. The universal purpose of economic democracy is to guarantee the minimum standards of life for all members of society.
Nature was pleased to provide abundant natural resources to all regions of the earth, but did not provide guidelines on how to distribute these resources among members of society. He entrusted this duty to the consideration and intelligence of the people. Those who are guided by unfairness, selfishness, and transparency are misused by these resources and are used to the benefit of the individual or group, not the welfare of the whole society. Everyday resources are limited, but human desires are unlimited. Here, for all members of society to live in peace and prosperity, people need to adopt a system that ensures the maximum use and rational distribution of resources. To achieve this, people have to put themselves in morality and create a joyful environment for morality.
Economic decentralization means production that is not profit-making. Under capitalism, economic decentralization is not possible because capitalist production always strives to maximize profit. Capitalists always produce at the lowest cost and sell the highest profits. Centralized production is preferred, leading to regional economic disparities and imbalances in population distribution. However, in the decentralized economy of PROUT, production is used for consumption and the minimum requirements of life are guaranteed for everyone. All regions offer ample opportunity to develop their economic potential, so that the problems of the floating population or the overcrowding of urban centers do not arise.
Without a country, they achieve optimum development in other sectors of industry and the economy, making it impossible for them to be highly advanced. If more than thirty-forty-five percent of the population in a country deals with agriculture, there is too much pressure on the earth. Such a country cannot develop and cannot be a balanced, decentralized development in all sectors of the economy. India is a classic example of this. About seventy-five percent of India's population lives in agriculture for livelihood.
In some democratic countries, such as Canada and Australia, a large part of the population is engaged in agricultural activities, and although these countries are agriculturally developed, they depend on industrially developed countries because they themselves are industrially underdeveloped. Canada, for example, has traditionally been dependent on the United States and Australia for Britain.
As far as India is concerned, as long as about 70 percent of the population deals with agriculture, the unbearable economic aspect of people continues. Any country facing such circumstances will be very difficult to fulfill its domestic and international obligations. People's purchasing capacity is constantly decreasing, while economic differences will continue to grow. The social, economic and political environment of the whole country is deteriorating. India is a clear example of these evils.
So economic decentralization does not mean that the majority of the population is dependent on agriculture for their livelihood, or that other sectors of the economy will not be developed. Rather, all sectors of the economy should strive for maximum development, and every sector should strive for maximum decentralization.
In every democratic country in the world, economic power is in the hands of some individuals and groups. In liberal democracies, economic power is managed by the capitalist competent, while in the socialist countries, economic power is in a small group of party leaders. In all cases, a handful of people – the number can easily be counted on a fingertip – manipulates the economic well-being of the whole society. When the economic power is entrusted to the hands of the people, the superiority of this group of leaders disappears and the political parties are destroyed forever.
People must choose political democracy or economic democracy. This means choosing a socio-economic system based on a central-economic or decentralized economy. Which one do they choose? Political democracy cannot fulfill people's hopes and aspirations and does not provide the basis for a strong and healthy human society. The only way to do this is to create economic democracy.
The Requirements of Economic Democracy
The first requirement of economic democracy is that everyone's minimum requirements, including food, clothing, education and medical treatment, must be ensured. This is not only an individual right, but also a collective necessity, as the easy accessibility of minimum requirements increases the welfare of society as a whole.
The second requirement of economic democracy is that the increase in customer capacity must be guaranteed to every individual. In economic democracy, local people have economic power. Consequently, local raw materials will be used to promote the economic well-being of the local population. This means that the raw material of one socio-economic entity should not be exported to another unit. Instead, industrial centers should be built where raw materials are available. This creates industries that are based on locally available raw materials and ensure the full employment of local people.
The third requirement of economic democracy is to place the power of economic decisions in the hands of the local population. Economic liberalization is the birth of every person. To achieve this, economic power must be provided to local people. In economic democracy, local residents will be able to make all economic decisions to produce goods on the basis of collective need and to distribute all agricultural and industrial goods.
The fourth requirement for economic democracy is that outsiders should be strictly prevented from interfering in the local economy. The outflow of local capital must be eliminated by strictly preventing outsiders or floating populations from participating in any local economic activity.
The success of economic democracy requires PROUT to be implemented and the economic prosperity of all people gradually increased. This, in turn, results in greater opportunities for people's spiritual emancipation.
Finally, we must remember that economic democracy is not only the economic liberation of people, but also the universal well-being of all, including plants and animals. Economic democracy will develop methods and tools to achieve the smooth development of society by recognizing the unique value of both people and non-people.
Source by sbobet