Functional Democracy

Democracy , A Government of the people, for the people by the people was claimed the Best amongst the worst possibilities of governance according to Abraham Lincoln.

As there can never be anything better than democracy as a governance.. but still democracy or the way see it is flawed

Democracy basicaly of 3 types, Presidential Democracy or what the USA follow, Parliamentary , That we indians try to follow..
And a third typeFunctional Democracy.. which is the theoretical third type of Democracy.

While there is again two variants of both Presidential and Parliamentary democracy , i.e Multi Party system and Bi-party system, Functional democracy needs a Multi functional society.

If i go into the details of the pros and cons of either a Presidential bi-party or presidential multi party, or parliamentary Bi partyor Parliaentary Multi-party..it would take me at leat 10 lecture series to complete..but putting it simple .. they all fall short of expectations in differen aspects.. some in the case of options the other in stability. some on in logic...

the most logical form of democracy hence becomes Functional Democracy..
What is Functional Democracy,
Its a democracy without constituencies or political parties.
the society is devided into multiple functions
or feilds of work...Like the feild of Lawyers, Medical Practitioners, Armed forces, Laboureres, Economists, House wives, Farmers... they choose the their representatives to the parliament.. and the parliament then chooses a governmentaccording to the representation, not by virtue of votes but by merit.. but at the same time the leader of each function automaticaly gets their portfolio..
like the elected armed force representative will get the defence portfolio..and economist will get finance
The what i ask and seek comments from the readers is ... is it feasible to have Democracy in India.. and my next few blogs will be on the same topic after getting your suggestions

Economics of Bribe Part II A Serious Note

Are all Bribes Illegal?


Bribes either have a legal or a moral connotation to it, either its illegal or immoral, what about bribes which are neither, what about a mother bribing a child with a candy to go to sleep so that the mom can take some rest, what about my brother buying me several drinks , for saving his ass a several times.. Are they illegal or immoral? They are neither.

Everybody has a selling price..Which varies from time to time what he will be selling for,

My friend might buy me drink to save his ass from his girl friend for not visiting her. But a single drink might not be enough for me to save his ass if I find him cheating on her..may be 25 drinks wont be enough.. But a bit of sentimental self pity from his side will make save his ass again..
The bribe can tangible or non tangible... like drinks, money, gifts are all tangible .. Emotional bribing though is not materialistic but is the worse form.

Then there is the third sort of bribing.the worst possible. Which though is not immoral or illegal to many .. But it is some thing, which is not human in lot of respect.. Its exploitation of wants Do you think we will be the people who will sell their votes.. Or even the less fortunate than us. The answer is no.
The people who sell their votes. Don’t even know what voting means, they don’t know what constituencies. They only know may be a meagre some 200 rs and some food will quench their thirst and they for one day have a square meal.. If u don’t have food in your belly or clothes on your body... and roof over your head.. then democracy can go to the dogs its a luxury.. as humans will first try to get their basic necessities right first.

Another intriguing story is that of Missionaries and the down trodden, low caste. tribal, poors, lepers etc
the Missionaries take care of them.. provide food, shelter, child education.. and as their service to god take their religion, and convert them..
do you thing for the people who they are converting.. religion mattered earlier.. what mattered was food and shelter.. they in a way bribed them to change their religion.. but was taking such a bribe IMMORAL or ILLEGAL. n the other side the Missionaries are doing their service to the god, and converting is very small price to these people for the amenities they are getting , they would argue.. but could this service to the god be voluntarily done..
At times bribe givers are re more immoral than the takers, as the takers re held to ransom..

if i had not eaten in 3 weeks i could kill for a bread...

EVERY BODY HAS A SELLING POINT. IF NOT MONEY.. THEN MORE MONEY ..IF NOT THEN LOVE... IF NOT LOVE THEN EMOTION.. IF NOT EMOTION THEN MAY BE FAITH..AND IF EVERY THING FAILS HOLD HIM TO RANSOM

The Economics of Bribe

In my days in college in Pune, we use to ride motorcycles without Driving Licence or PUC, or NOC.. And every once in a while we used to get caught for the cops, if one saw the combined fine being caught by a cop for breaking a signal or parking in wrong location, given the above anomalies would amount to exactly 2000 rupees then, (900 for noc, 700 for driving licence, 300 for PUC, and 100 for breaking the signal)

Every time we got caught, we bribed the cop 100 rupees, but it was not the 100 rupees that was important, but the harassment undergone was huge ordeal, hence we reduced parking in wrong places, stopped breaking the signals and got that occasional PUC done .

Ronald Coase once said if there are two parties in a conflict, and there are well-defined ownership rights, then Pareto optimality can be achieved by mutual consensus by bargaining a middle path. (I know that’s very basic argument and no rocket science involved. but he still got a Noble in Economics for proving this and is called the Coase theorem, that’s what most economist have got their nobles, proving basic arguments)

Why do I say so, well government has a well-defined quasi ownership to road safety and law and order, and the conflict is between me and the protectors of law. Hence a mutually beneficial middle path can be achieved which will be Pareto optimal, by mutual consensus of bargaining. Basically Bribe.

Lets make it simple in a way: The cop who gets peanuts of a salary finds it incentive enough to catch hold of the person breaking the signal for that Rs. 100 as a bribe, he will calculate a suggest 2000, but I will pay 100, if I had Paid 2000, then he would not find it incentive enough as he had to make a challan of the same, and the money goes to the Government not him.

Also its beneficial for me as I am get away paying 100 rupees instead of 2000 but the harassment is something I don’t like.

So I make sure from next time I don’t cut the signal, have a PUC, NOC, DRIVING LICENCE, and do not park in no parking.

This becomes socially beneficial, and doing so attains a social optimum.

Now take away the bribe scenario, what happens I always Pay 2000 rupees, so the cop does not have an incentive of catching me as His salary is not a Function of number of law breaker he catches, so he shirks his duty, and I break the signal and go scott free.

So the social optimum is not attained.

Hence what do I conclude, Bribes good???

No I would not say that exactly, I would put it this way, a Law Enforcers slary should be a function of the variable x plus a Constant C.

Or f(y) = fx + C (Hebrew?? Sorry I had to do it, at the end I am an Economist by Education)

Where y= the law enforcers salary

X= the incentive derived from catching a law breaker

C= Constant, or the basic salary he receives from the government irrespective of number of law breakers he catches.

With the basic Economic Assumption of Ceteris Paribus as mentioned by my fellow economists.

The basic hypothesis is to remove bribe and still have a social optimal the policy makers should increase the law enforcers basic salary (C) by giving him an incentive to catch the law breakers (x) to reach a Social Optimum situation or else the Economics of bribe will allow the society to achieve the Pareto –optimality between law breakers and enforcers.

The Preface

I am Making my own destiny.. i just wont realise that till the point I reach there.
Hence will never realise the opportunity cost incurred on forgoing an alternative while making a choice in life.Will never know where the doors and avenues that i did not take would have lead me..
I just hope when i reach there i find it was a good life all in all seating with my lady while i pass the pipe around,

Its the end that always mattered
i thought of writing a book
then i realised my book doesnt have an end..
u cant tell a story.. if it has not ended
i hope of coming back to kolkatta which will give me an end.. the end to a seven year long quest to a quintessential life of a student.. who left home a boy and came back a man

The Under Trial

JUSTICE FOR JESSICA or Hang THE MATOO MURDERER

I have been hearing this for a while now, then the Nithari Case, where Mr Pandher was bashed up by the Lawyers....
We want the criminals Punished. but why do we give the judgement before the court actually does..
We convict the under trials much before into criminals, before the court actually gives its verdict.

For Instance a big News Channel suddenly took up the case of in search of Bitty Mohanty, who jumped Parole, after being convicted by a fast track court. We were all praising the fast verdict.. but have we thought was the verdict too fast..
Was Bitty Actually framed.. why would a German tourist go with him from Delhi to Ajmer, stay in the same Hotel room.. and then after few days accuse him of rape..
i am not trying to be a chauvinist here .. but its easy to black mail a man when he has slept with some body, with the new DNA tests, he can be hold to ransom as he is very vulnerable to be accused of Rape when it was consensual sex.
Some where down the line we have forgotten to think and are to gullible to what media states...
Mr Pandher again had to face the wrath of the lawyers, and was beaten blue .. while still in trial.. is that fair.. he is not even proven guilty, actually the first series of Narco tests can actually acquit him.. but no media says he is a killer.. so let us kill him.. Wait a min here, I am no way defending what he did, thats in human, and i will be one of the first to demand his head if proven guilty.
Going back to the old Jessica and Matoo case, what if the accused are actually innocent, what if Ram Jethmalanis statement of dual bullet was actually true, why will a an fire to rounds of shot for asking a drink, when the first shot fired in the air, wont he give enough time for the waitress to react and may be out of fear get him his drink, hence shooting her immediately sounds a bit rusty..
But the media had a huge effect, on the case.. not only media but the people in general.. but did we think about the pros and cons of the case.
In Matoo case with no new evidence available to the High Court, pronounced Mr Singh guilty, out of sheer media, hype, while he was acquitted by the lesser court for lack of substantial evidence. Not only was he proved guilty , but also was given the capital punishment, which now has been stayed by the SC for Lack of Substantial Evidence.

The under trails only become convicts when they are adjudged so by the court, we some how driven by the media, do not give the under trails a fair chance under article 32 of the Indian Constitution as a part of the fundamental right to constitutional remedies.
we adjudge some as terrorist and some as murderers, they might be so. but some might just be being framed... and we kill them to.
so next time please leave the thinking to your self and do not allow the media to think for you.