ETHICS INTERNAL

SUBMISSION
Rithvik Mathur
15010126385
1st Year, Division D
BBA. LLB.
The address was delivered by former Cabinet Secretary Prabhat Kumar. He discussed
democracy, governance and how it is relevant to the youth of the country.

R. C. B. P. Narona Civil Servants are like rice soldiers, who

sell their sword, but not their honour
Mr. Kumar started his speech, by bringing up the flaws in democracies around the
world, pointing out that Democracy as an institution is under tremendous stress. For
want of a better ideology, we have to be content with democracy with all its
shortcomings.
One severe flaw is corruption.
He then went on to emphasise the importance of the youth realising their role in
democracy and governance. Two things that are much too important to be left in the
bumbling hands of the bureaucracy.
Mr. Kumar then went on to point out that the democratic process assumes man is
inherently good, seemingly implying that it may be otherwise. With no further
clarification this statement is ambiguous and thought provoking. For example the
word good, its meaning can change with society, chivalry for example, while the
action may not be harmful as it is, the thought that women need somebody to hold
their door open, implies inequality. What about being nice, displaying the same
behaviour when interacting with all people.
Though I have my own ideals now, these are subject to change. Five years ago, I
would have hated the person I have become, and Im not proud of the person I was,
but this has taught me that it is not my place to judge. If God does or did exist, I do
believe that His or Her teachings are to be followed, but I fully support the present
Institutional changes brought without violating the teachings of God. Pope Francis
and his revolutionary policy of mercy over judgement is something I wish to see
followed by all people bound by a code, at the same time I respect their decision not
to. Today I feel that people need to follow their own path and I disapprove of
subverting others to an ideology, but tomorrow my ideology may be the one that

needs to be followed to ensure society is on the path of righteousness. As the

most resilient, dominating species on this planet, we tend to outlive our ideals, even
the ones set in stone, so no matter what we do it will be the right thing to do and
at the same time the wrong thing.
Another interpretation of the statement made by Mr. Kumar is that people are
inherently capable of choosing the right candidate. That is to say they will cast their
vote, not vote their caste, they will read up enough to make a sufficiently informed
decision to recognise the candidate best suited for ones well-being, it may also mean
that people will consider the needs of society above their own while casting their
vote, even if it means compromising with oneself.
However it is not possible for most people to recognise the best ideas and
candidates, for example as a lawyer, I may know what is best law reforms for our
nation, yet when it comes to economic strategies, I will not be able to recognise
good ideas. Dr David Dunning of Cornell University, suggests in a recent research
paper that there are few people that are capable of identifying good ideas. Should
we conduct aptitude tests to decide who gets to vote and who doesnt? In my
opinion, it seems more logical to do so. As Frank D. Roosevelt put it, the real
safeguard of democracy is education, yet when the governments are in charge of
education, media sensationalising every titbit and highly opinionated renditions of
the news such a system would be plagued with its own problems.
Another issue brought up by Mr Kumar is governments ignoring the electorate after
the elections, according to the millennium survey, only one in ten people feel that
governance is carried out according to the wished of people. The Economist
conducted a survey of nearly 170 countries and judged them on the basis of their
electoral process. Civil liberties, political participation, political culture and the
functioning of their governments. Only 26 nations could be called a democracy in the
truest sense of the word, 56 were flawed democracies and the rest were not
democracies.
He