Democracy & art of motorcycle maintanence- II

Previous post 

Continuing where we left from, there are other issues with what Rohit wrote. For instance Rohit rebuts my Guns and butter post by arguing that there are already multiple votes for municipal, state and central government. This argument however fails to take into account the fact although there is a hierarchy of state, the power economic as well as political is centralized rendering options of multiple votes irrelevant*. This entails a greater devolution of economic as well as political power in accordance with principle of subsidiarity .
To summarize it is good to talk about theory but detail matters.

Similar is his assertion that it is fault of individuals and not democracy as a system per se. This to me is befuddling, surely even Rohit realizes that a system is good only to the extent it delivers within the constraints. This, by the way, is the reason I call like to certain clique democracy worshipers**. It is because they start from their belief in democracy as infallible and conclude the fault lies with people. To reiterate first conclusion in previous post , democracy or any other system of governance so constituted that it can deliver only when the public is faultless is bound to fail, because let's acknowledge it, public has faults, or as James Madison commented in the federalist paper 51

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions (emphasis mine).

I also do not know why Rohit assumes that I advocate prior existence of institution when I do no such thing.

However this remains a bigger problem still. This is the argument that the device of public franchise alone, without the presence of of supporting institutions facilitating broader consultation, are sufficient to deliver public good. The problem, as I see, that the mere act of voting doesn't provide any avenue or platform for deliberation and dissemination of ideas which form the core of public policies. Voting is merely a process for selecting the most popular platform and handing over the keys of power. Related to this comes another problem, that of public choice.

Now as I see (I may be wrong though) Rohit assumes that problem of public choice is a trivial one and one which can be dealt mostly at individual level. I am not so sure, the vast matrix of options and preferences, often at conflict with each other, severely restrict our ability to optimize public good through public franchise (I am not sure but possibly Arrow's impossibility theorem places restriction on the utility of public choice. It turns out to resolve the conflict not only there must exist institutions for consultation and formulation of policies, but also to minimize conflict by encouraging cooperation and formation of electoral coalition (required for any diverse nation such as ours)***

* Make it a point to read this article

** In this perhaps a parallel can be drawn with people who think that India failed Chacha Nehru.

*** Which reminds me, I have to write follow up to this post .