Question: Is it possible to have a democratic forum and still not permit everyone to participate in it? In other words, how can we call a forum democratic if we put a restriction on its access? Is it not contradictory?


Before answering this question in a more technical way, let me paraphrase a story about Mahadev's boon and Bhasmasur's penance. Mahadev, who is also called Ashutosh because of his propensity to be pleased quickly, had a reputation of giving unconditional blessing to anyone provided the person made him happy. Bhasmasur, a sly demon, knew this idiosyncrasy of the god of Gods and decided to get a blessing from him by undertaking a very severe form of penance for many years. Mahadev, seeing his bhakta's sacrifice, ultimately became pleased and asked him if he wished any boon. Bhasmasur asked, "Can you give me anything that I asked?". Mahadev said, "Yes, anything". Bhasmasur then said, "I want a power to destroy the person on whose head I put my hand". Mahadev was about to give this boon to Bhasmasur but Bishnu, who was watching all this from his palace in Baikuntha, understood the malicious intent of Bhasmasur. He knew that Bhasmasur would use the power given by Mahadev to destroy Mahadev hismself. So, he descended to Kailash from Baikuntha and winked at Mahadev. However, Mahadev, being Mahadev, gave the boon to Bhasmasur without considering the consequences. Bishnu then felt the need to rectify this mistake immediately and took recourse in a ruse. He mockingly said to Bhasmasur, "You have been deceived by Mahadev as he has not given you any such power. You can verify it by putting your hand over your head." Bhasmasur did what Bishnu suggested and became a pile of dust in no time.

Yo ta bhayo pauranik kaalko Mahadev ra Bhasmasur ko katha. Do we have any thing similar to that in our time? I believe Arrow's Impossibility Theorem pertaing to democracy is one such story. Arrow in his PhD thesis demonstrated that it is not possible to include everyone's preferences even in a democratic system. That is, even a democratic system, is not necessarily fair to everyone.

From a systems perspective, it is evident that the degree of openness (or closeness) of a system is only a relative one. A completely open system is an ideal system. One must impose boundary in such a system before it can be studied or managed.

Even open source systems in computing need to agree on some fundamental standards. Without such protocols, it is not possible for them to manage their complexity and evolve.

==========================================
Just because that a forum imposes certain restrictions or requirements does not necessarily mean that the forum is undemocratic. As long as such stipulations do not contradict the underlying democratic values, it is entirely possible to impose those restrictions and yet have a democratic system. Since democracy itself is a system, it must have a set of its rules and boundary. The decision where to put the boundary depends on the intended level of organizational complexity though.

Thanks Gokulbro for giving some theoretical funda on this. I also thought the argument of 'let all in, otherwise you are not democratic' a bit difficult to grasp, and probably done in bitterness, though I didn't like the fact that the forum was not fully open, and yet called itself democrat....

I have discovered that ashu is the first to criticize anyone who supports party or party-maoist agreement. He was quick to dismiss Senator Leahy, and now he is so quick to dismiss Indian express journo, he is also suggesting (unsuccessfully) for parties to take part in the election under gynae. I doubt this man's judgement. Either he is the only right person, or he is damn wrong, so wrong and arrogant that he will never find out it.

Gokul-ji,

This is the beauty of OPEN discussions.

A says something;
B disagrees;
A counters with arguments;
B writes his rebuttals; C, D and E et al chime in with their views -- and the
whole world is watching.

And on and on it goes -- providing education, information, entertainment and even irritation.

The result?
Ultimately though, if you stick to it, better ideas do emerge through this continous process of give and take. Sort of like "wisdom of crowd", really -- with diversity, expertise, independence of thoughts and so on.

That's the sort of openness I would advocate when discussing things about PRESENT-DAY Nepal.

The fact that Nepe had to bring in portions of those closed discussions to Sajha (which is a lot more open system), presumably to solicit different viewpoints, underscores the sheer superiority of an open system.

And Sajha, too, with San watching over everything, is a loosely rule-bound space.

So, yes, as per Ken Arrow, democracy cannot satisfy everyone's preferences.
But how we set up the democratic platform in the first place DOES go a long way to MINIMIZING the chances of people not gettinng what they want in a democratric set-up.

Enjoyed the bhasmasur parable.
Very clever and entertaining.

oohi
ashu

Pire writes:

"I have discovered that ashu is the first to criticize anyone who supports party or party-maoist agreement. He was quick to dismiss Senator Leahy, and now he is so quick to dismiss Indian express journo, he is also suggesting (unsuccessfully) for parties to take part in the election under gynae. I doubt this man's judgement. Either he is the only right person, or he is damn wrong, so wrong and arrogant that he will never find out it."



Pire, you are entitled to your opinion, of course.
But take a step back and look at the big picture.

By nature, I am an optimistic skeptic, and NOT a pessimistic cynic. I enjoy debating
and thinking through ALL sides of an issue relentlessly and with profound skepticism -- though with dollops of humor -- in private and in public before making up my mind about many public/private issues. This habit has served me quite well personally and professionally over the years; and friends know that they can always get
no-nonsense/neutral solid advice from me re: anything.

That said, everyone brings something different to Sajha to add to its diversity.
I bring (see the para above) to this forum.

Some like it; saome don't; and that's the way it is.
Meantime, I have no interest to live my life only to please others. :-)

oohi
ashu

I do agree with the notion that democracy does not necessarily satisfy views and opinions of everybody. Democracy emphasizes on majority and hence the opinion which is followed by most number of people ultimately gets the chance to rule. However, democracy also makes sure that all views get a chance to be presented in and when we talk about a democratic debate and/ or a forum, it should allow all views to have equal chance of participation no matter what. Hence according to what I have understood about democracy, a forum which does not welcome the views from all sides, cannot claim itself to be DEMOCRATIC.

The forum that Nepe talks about appears to be an "anti-King" forum.

Nothing more.
And that's perfectly fine -- in and of itself.

Let the forum call itself "Anti-King" forum, and I, for one, will have no problem with that.

I am just disappointed that members there -- despite their credentials - just seem to have neither the intellectual honesty nor the straightforward courage to call it as
such.

Instead, to protect themselves clumsily, they have borrowed and made a mockery of a valuable word "democracy" by calling the forum -- gasp, choke -- Nepal Democracy Forum! Ah, the arrogance! Or the cowardice!!

And what does the forum do?

1) Screens potential members' political affiliations first;
2) Expels disagreeable members.
3) Wah-wahs each members write-ups.

Like I said, even the Maoist Politburo would envy such systems!

Let me put my cards on the table: I have no desire to join the group. I am NOT bitter about any aspect of the group. This is NOT about Nepe too.

As a democrat who thinks the little guys should have all the chances too, I just find thr group's operations PERVERSELY fascinating enough to raise hell in this OPEN forum.

Tetti ho.

oohi
ashu

In ideal world - Thesis -> Synthesis <-Antithesis
In Sajha -- Nepe's Theisis -> Senti Thesis <- Ashu's Antithesis. :)

hehe ashu, is there anything you support in this wold?

you seem like angry young man of amitav bachan movies of yore. fighting, destroying everything with predictable dialogues, kasams, fights etc.

I see that you are destroyng a fella in another thread, calling him crisis mongerer. here, you are renaming a group (I too don't like that group, but what do I care that group that I am not going to visit anyway) badmouthing against them. and then patrick leahy also got your kick. I bet there is a write up in your computer cursing Kofi Annan's latest statement, Louise arbor of human right some organization's latest statement, Girija's latest, India's latest etc. etc. still you manage to call yourself the greatest democrat!

Hey pire character, you seem to be very attracted towards ashu in rather unusual ways. since you are keeping track of all his stance on everything. without wasting anymore time, i present you with this pic:

Oh my GOD!

Summary of Ashu's Orginal Research Results:

1. Civil Engineers want to have a big earthquake because they get job after disaster.
2. Crisis managers want to make the things even worse to have good income.
3. Economists--- like Ashus--- want to see economically failed state to get jobs (The reason why Ashu supports KG, who is destroying our economy.
4. Do I have to give more examples on Ashu's utmost original logic or let Ashu elaborate it?

I found many new Ashu-like theories here in Sajha from Ashu-like (so-called) intellectuals.

God less Sajha.

-General

Sorry --- in wrong place!

This post would have to be in

http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=27120


-General

III dude,

LOL.

if i really love somebody, then i wud go and tell him/her, wudn't be flirting here.

jaba pyar kiya to darna kya?

Pire,

Since you have an obsession to know more about me,
here's my personality profile for your information.

It's 90 percent accurate -- according to those who know me well.

Enjoy,

- http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTP.html

oohi
ashu

"Just because that a forum imposes certain restrictions or requirements does not necessarily mean that the forum is undemocratic. As long as such stipulations do not contradict the underlying democratic values, it is entirely possible to impose those restrictions and yet have a democratic system."

THATS AN OXYMORON STATEMENT. I THOUGHT THATS WHAT THESE MORONS WERE DOING TRYING TO GET RID OF WITH GYANEY. AND HERE COME ANOTHER BUNCH OF MORONS TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THE SAME RULES AGAIN. Oh yeah we are democratic but its our version of democracy and we dont want to include you even thought you are a NEPALI. FUG YOU PEOPLE.

I think we are confusing Anarchy with democracy here. Even in a democracy there will be rules and regulations.

If you don't think there should be any restrictions rules or regulations, then we're talking about anarchy, NOT democracy.

What just because NEPE and Poonte dun like it, ARE THEY GOING TO EXCLUDE THOSE PEOPLE BURNING CARS ? OR PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO SWEAR ALL THE TIME ? Their decision to open up a seperate forum is evident that they think they are better than the rest. JUst like ASHu said EN ELITIST'S VERSION OF DEMOCRACY. THIS IS THE VERY ROOT OF THE CURRENT PROBLEM, AND HERE ARE BUNCH OF MORONS TRYING TO REWRITE THE HISTORY WITH THE SAME RHETORIC.

Arrow's work should not be interpreted in such a narrow sense.

To begin with, the words used here are prolix - democracy, forum, etc. etc. Who knows what they mean! I have a (first) question to all who freely quote from Arrow (and pretend to understand his dissertation - I know I don't) - Are "majority rule" and "democracy" one and the same?

If yes, I think that is a narrow definition of both "majority rule" and "democracy".

If no, then people should refrain from trivializing Arrow's work.

By seperating themselves, they are isolating themselves fromm general public. And UNTILL THEY INCLUDE THOSE TYRE BURING, CAR VANDALIZING, STONE THROWING PEOPLE IN THEIR PLAN, THEY WILL KEEP DISRUPTING THE PROGRESS OF THE COUNTRY. Which these morons don't seem to understand.

I am amazed and deeply impressed by the lenght, breadth and height of Bathroomcoffee's knowledge. I am really in awe right now.

Ashu wrote: "I have no desire to join the group"

--> If you go to Google and submit a request to enter the group, wouldn't that mean you DO have a desire to join the group? Just curious.