Majoritarianism

RSS AS A TERRORIST OUTFIT: EVIDENCES FROM ITS ARCHIVES
CONTENTS
RSS Modeled After Nazi & Fascist Parties
Linkages with Mussolini

RSS Celebrated the Holocaust & Planned to Execute it for Cleansing Indian Muslims & Christians
RSS Rolls out Racist Project of Producing 'Aryan' Babies in India

Hatred for Democratic-Secular India

Golwalkar Planned Massacre of Muslims on the Eve of Indian Independence
Even Sardar Patel Underlined Massacre of Muslims During the Partition by the RSS
Highly Decorated Indian Police Officer on RSS Terrorism Under Modi Rule

For RSS Indian Muslims & Christians are 'Internal Threat' Number One & Two Respectively

Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism not Independent Religions
RSS Hatred for the Dark-Skinned South Indians

RSS Linkages with the International Terrorist Organizations:
Report in The New York Times
Neo-Nazi Mass Murderer of Norway, Breivik's linkages with the RSS

Even Father of the Nation, MK Gandhi not Spared

RSS as a North Indian Brahmanical Terrorist Organization

A Selection of Laws of Manu Denigrating Dalits/Untouchables
A Selection of Laws of Manu Demeaning Hindu women
RSS Hatred for Dark-Skinned South Indians

Golwalkar on human Crossbreeding in Kerala: Denigrating Kerala Hindus specially women

Use of Conspiracies for Terrorist Activities by the RSS

Despite India's status as the world's largest democracy and increasing turnouts in many of the countries of South Asia, recent elections raise concerns about the threat to democracy in the form of majoritarianism. Many of the countries of South Asia are extremely diverse and (mainly) informal mechanisms of accommodation of minorities have been deployed. At the same time concerns about the threat to minority rights in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have been strongly articulated. It is notable that those countries of South Asia, such as Sri Lanka and Pakistan, which have not accommodated their non-dominant groups, have witnessed high levels of conflict. India has been more accommodative, of both linguistic and religious minorities. However, it is precisely this process of accommodation that many in India now worry will be undermined by Hindu majoritarianism.

This paper aims to understand the complexity of majoritarianism and how it converts into populism. It argues that majoritarianism cannot survive without the fodder called 'minorities'. Further, it is argued that because of the authoritative tendency of majoritarianism, many from the same majority communities hold opposing views on policies and action of their community. Majoritarianism suppresses internal criticism and critics are treated as traitors, the tag used for minorities. Populist majoritarianism is an ideology which believes that the original claimant on the politics and society should be those who form majority in the population-religiously, ethnically, or linguistically. This paper also aims to understand, theoretically, populist majoritarianism in India and Pakistan. The Indian case is highlighted many a times empirically through Hindu-Muslim conflict. In this paper Pakistan is dealt empirically as a special case study of majority and minority conflict.

DURING the course of my fieldwork in Kashmir in 2009, at some point I found myself in Shopian and Bomai, Sopore, interacting with leaders of localized agitations and families of victims around two isolated events. In Shopian two women who had gone missing the night before were found dead in Rambiar Nalla, with their bodies in a state that lead people to believe that they had been raped and then murdered.1 In Bomai two unarmed young men from the neighbourhood had been killed by soldiers from the Rashtriya Rifles, long encamped in the village, in broad daylight, soon after they had disembarked from a public transport vehicle.2 In both the cases the agitators who had organized themselves into coordination committees sought legal justice from the state. The agitators believed that their struggle would help them politically, regardless of its outcome. If it succeeded, it would help them to establish culpability, get the people involved punished and prevent such occurrences from taking pl...

The status of India as the world’s largest democracy is often lauded. It has managed to maintain democracy despite (or some would argue, because of) its high levels of diversity. However, India has not had an unblemished democratic record. The re-election of the overtly Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party in 2019 has increased concerns about the threat to India’s religiously and linguistically diverse democracy and the rule of law. However, India is not the only democracy facing challenges related to majoritarian nationalism; there has been a worldwide rise in the language of majority ‘rights’ in democratic systems. The importance of analysing the extent to which the rights of majorities are being increasingly institutionalized within democratic systems has therefore increased. For policymakers as well as political scientists, it is vitally important to identify whether tendencies toward ethnic democracy are increasing (and the conditions under which they do so). There may well be red flags that emerge in established democratic systems, heralding the potential direction of travel. The conclusion revisits this point as it speaks to the significance of this article. This article proposes a methodology to identify degrees of ethnic democracy using a combination of formal and informal measures and illustrates it by assessing India as an ethnic democracy in relation to its Muslim communities.

El trabajo reconstruye y analiza críticamente la respuesta de Jeremy Waldron a importantes problemas sobre política y derecho, justicia y autoridad. Waldron reivindica al mismo tiempo una tesis no escéptica sobre la existencia los derechos morales-políticos, una tesis escéptica sobre la existencia de procedimientos epistémicos superiores para identificarlos, y una tesis positiva sobre la legitimidad política (mayoritarismo participativo). El trabajo argumenta que su respuesta solo resulta consistente si se añade un cuarto vértice: el presupuesto de "igualdad de agencia y capacidad epistémica" en los portadores de derechos. Pero su introducción requiere abandonar y redefinir dos de los otros elementos, lo que conduce finalmente a las respuestas típicas del deliberativismo epistémico. Las críticas de Waldron a la revisión judicial se reinterpretan sobre esa nueva base.

The article reconstructs and critically analyzes Jeremy Waldron's responses to major problems on law and politics, justice and authority. Waldron claims at the same time a non-skeptical thesis about the existence of moral-political rights, a skeptical thesis about the existence of more accurate epistemic procedures to identify them, and a positive thesis about political legitimacy (participatory majoritarianism). The paper argues that his theory is consistent only if a fourth vertex, implicit in the theory, is added (the "equality of agency and epistemic capacity" of rights-holders). But this explicit addition requires abandoning and redefining two of the other elements, and this eventually conducts us to the typical claims of epistemic deliberativism. Waldron's criticisms to judicial review are reinterpreted on these new grounds.

The coronavirus has changed the social fabric of many societies. It came with so many consequences in the life of people which cannot be described without taking into account the loss of life; trauma and psychological distress people are going through in their everyday life. The initial days of uncertainty and unpredictability in the unruly behaviour of virus created the doomsday kind of situation for people and authorities, which has been mitigated gradually with the introduction of vaccines and booster doses and regimen of other combination of medicines. Yet people are into rumour spreading through social media platforms and there are doubters who are yet to believe the presence of coronavirus. This paper is an attempt to explain and understand the impact of coronavirus on Indian social life. One of the ways of studying Indian society is to bring in the phenomenological and political anthropology as a methodological tool to unravel the intricacies, social cleavages and the fault lines prevailing in the everyday life of people. By applying these methodological tools one can also understand the complexity it brings into social, political and economic life of an individual and community.

Executive autonomy influences the ability of states to make credible commitments, utilise their domestic resources, and deter adversaries. In majoritarian parliamentary regimes, it is often assumed that executive autonomy is derived from the possession of a substantial parliamentary majority, since this affords the government a 'buffer' in the legislature. Yet, this understanding fails to account for the value of seats above the majority threshold for foreign policy, where the executive is constrained by internal dissent more than the non-passage of legislation. This article challenges the assumption of a linear relationship between seat share and executive autonomy through a theoretical re-examination of the politics of foreign policy in majoritarian parliamentary systems. It argues that possession of a significant majority can actually undermine the executive's foreign policy autonomy, since it increases the degree of intra-party factionalism without introducing corresponding benefits in the legislature. The argument is illustrated empirically through an examination of the politics of British foreign policy at three decisive elections (1950, 1955, and 1966) in the early Cold War period.

This chapter uses ethnographic evidence from a Dalit (“untouchable”) slum in northern Chennai to argue that Dalits whose ancestors were once excluded from the Hindu fold have now been fully integrated within it. But the Hinduism these urban Dalits practice differs markedly from that of elites. It rejects caste distinctions; it does not dismiss the importance of worldly suffering and its overcoming in comparison to “spiritual” ends; it emphasizes personal choice, rather than subordinating the individual to hypostatized collectivities like caste and religious community; it treats morality as a universal property, in which the same standards apply to all.

Parlamentonun feshi parlamenterlerin görevine son veren ve seçimlerin yenilenmesine sebep olan önemli bir kurumdur. Öncelikli olarak parlamentonun feshi sınıflandırılmış, feshin yöntemi ve şekli açıklanmıştır. Parlamentonun feshi, yürütme eliyle fesih, öz fesih, anayasal fesih ve halkın kararı ile fesih olarak tasnif edilebilir. Feshin yazılı şekilde yapılması kabul edilmektedir. Feshin teorisi açıklandıktan sonra feshin işlevi açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Feshin işlevi iki başlık altında incelenmiştir. İlk olarak fesih politik amaçlarla kullanılabilir. Fesih yetkisine sahip olan makam parlamentoyu baskı altına alabilecektir. Bu yetki parlamento çoğunluğunu belirlemek için de kullanılabilir. Feshin ikinci ve ideal işlevi ise organlar arasındaki krizleri çözmek, seçmen desteğini yenilemek ve politik konularda karar alırken seçmenin görüşüne başvurmaktır. Çalışmanın sonucunda sınırlı fesih yetkisinin uzlaşmacı demokrasiyi, takdiri fesih yetkisinin ise çoğunlukçu demokrasiyi destekleyeceğine ulaşılmıştır. -------------------- Dissolution of parliament is an important topic that terminates parliamentarian's official titles and renews general elections. First, dissolution of parliament classified and then dissolution form and procedure explained. Dissolution of parliament can be classified to executive dissolution, self-dissolution, automatic dissolution and dissolution by the people. Written procedure accepted for dissolution. After the dissolution theory is explained, the function of dissolution is tried to be explained. The function of dissolution was examined under two headings. First, dissolution power can be used for political reasons. Authority who can enjoy with dissolution power, can oppress legislative assembly. This power can use to shape legislative majority. Second and ideal function of dissolution of parliament is solving inter powers problems, renewing mandate and learning voters view about political decisions. The conclusion of this study is that restricted dissolution power will support proportional democracy and discretionally dissolution power will give support to majoritarian democracy.

Uncanny parallels
POLITICS AND PLAY | How India in the 2020s resembles Italy in the 1920s

________________________________________
Ramachandra Guha  |    |  Published 12.09.20, THE TELEGRAPH KOLKATA
________________________________________

The thesis classifies cases of majoritarian and power-sharing democracy in plural societies. The research questions are: How are democratic regimes in plural societies articulated? Which dimensions can grasp the institutional varieties and practical performances of political regimes in ethnically divided democracies? What is the effect of majoritarian institutions in plural democracies, in terms of ethnic inclusion and exclusion?
Accordingly, I shall map 47 plural democracies through 18 variables along 2 institutional dimensions: (i) majoritarianism or power-sharing in the government, parliament and electoral system and (ii) the territorial articulation of power. I shall then add another dimension on (iii) regime quality related to group relations: ethnic inclusion or exclusion. This framework, coupling de jure institutions with de facto performances, proves that: (i) power-sharing democracy is associated with ethnic inclusion; nonetheless (ii) majoritarian democracy occurs in plural societies and can coexist with ethnic inclusion.
A simple quantitative analysis is insufficient to explain this pattern. I will thence conduct a most similar comparison of 2 majoritarian democracies of my sample – Turkey (majoritarian/ exclusive) and Mali (majoritarian/inclusive) – to confirm that: (i) majoritarian institutions in plural societies often lead to ethnic exclusion, albeit (ii) this scenario can be avoided when exogenous factors are at play (party system, political culture/tradition of accommodation). However, as the diachronic analysis will show, these factors remain precarious and (iii) majoritarian institutions, in particular the centralization of power, are demonstrated to be ill-suited to deal with territorially concentrated minorities.
The thesis offers a detailed and useful classification and discusses examples of majority rule and power-sharing in plural democracies, and finally proposes further research directions, including authoritarianism and regime change.

This paper analyses the attempts of the current Israeli government to undo the liberal principles of the so-called constitutional revolution, which are specified in the Basic Laws " Human Dignity and Freedom " and " Freedom of Occupation ". The background to this endeavor is at least twofold: On the one hand, the coalition parties are trying to strengthen Jewish nationalist and religious rights at the cost of individual and minority rights; on the other hand, it is combined with an attack on the Supreme Court´s perceived role as a defender of those rights. Therefore, the paper argues that we can see the attempt to revoke the in any case limited constitutional anchorage of liberal democracy in favor of a majoritarian democracy, which gives collective values precedence over individual rights. 1 In its outlook, the paper refers to the repercussions of these developments for the European-Israel relations. This takes into account that the European Union traditionally frames itself as the defender of a liberal democracy, but sees at the same time developments similar to Israel in central and eastern European states. The current Israeli government coalition, which was formed after the election in 2015, is often considered " the most right-winged government " in the history of Israel. 2 This notion is not unfounded: While the government is not monolithic, all parties of the coalition Likud, Jewish Home, Yisrael Beitenu (which joined the government only several months after) Shas, Torah Judaism and Kulanu can be considered to be right of the center. This *Peter Lintl is a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Policy (SWP) and head of the project " Israel and its regional and global conflicts: Domestic developments, security issues and foreign affairs " All internet sources have last accessed on 08.06.2018. 1 Note: The distinction here made does not refer to the more common distinction made originally by Arend Lijphart between majoritarian and consensus political systems (in which Great Britain would adhere to the former and Israel to the latter), but to the distinction between liberal and majoritarian ideas of democracy: Liberal democracies see constitutions and checks and balances as safeguarding minorities from majorities, whereas majoritarian politicians will portray these liberal stances as an infringement of democracy.

This article examines the politics of naming in one of the longest-running and most intractable conflicts in the world: that between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan state. While the narratives presented by the LTTE and the state in support of their respective positions are complex and range across a number of issues, this paper is primarily concerned with the politics of the ‘terrorist’ label as applied to the LTTE. In particular, it examines how the characterisation of the conflict as a form of terrorism has affected its evolutionary course. While the Sri Lankan state has deployed the language of terrorism to further its strategic aims in both the domestic and international spheres, the label has not necessarily impeded the growth of the LTTE’s military capability but has, by denying the LTTE international legitimacy, undermined the organisation’s stated political project — Tamil self-determination. The article also outlines the contradictions between prevailing international attitudes to terrorism and the conduct of key international actors with regard to the protagonists in Sri Lanka and demonstrates how the sustained rhetoric of terrorism has become a serious impediment to reaching a permanent resolution of the conflict.

This comparative study explores the impact of populist majoritarianism on Greek and Turkish democratic transition. Using case studies from Greece and Turkey, the author argues that while majoritarianism is often celebrated as a manifestation of popular sovereignty, it can undermine institutional performance and even stifle the process of democratic consolidation, contributing to a confrontational and inefficient democratic regime in cases of transition states where levels of social capital are low and social polarization is high. It is shown that building up a “mild democracy” requires maturity of institutions and an efficient system of checks and balances and implementation control mechanisms, while building consensus and trust in societies torn by ethnic, religious and ideological divides is not a luxury but a permissive condition for democratic consolidation and economic prosperity. This book will be of use to students and scholars interested in the fields of Greek and Turkish politics, comparative politics and democracy.

अगस्त 5, 2020: भारतीय गणतंत्र का ‘वध’
संप्रभु-लोकतांत्रिक भारतीय गणतंत्र 26 जनवरी, 1950 को एक ऐतिहासिक संविधान के साथ अस्तित्व में आया, जिसकी प्रस्तावना में दृढ़ प्रतिबद्धता के साथ यह घोषणा की गई थी कि “न्याय, सामाजिक, आर्थिक और राजनीतिक, विचार, अभिव्यक्ति, विश्वास, धर्म और उपासना की स्वतंत्रता, प्रतिष्ठा और अवसर की समता प्राप्त करने के लिए तथा, उन सबमें व्यक्ति की गरिमा और राष्ट्र की एकता और अखण्डता सुनिश्चित करनेवाले बंधुत्व को बढ़ाने।।।" के लिए.गणतंत्र काम करेगा। 
इस गणतंत्र की 5 अगस्त, 2020 को अयोध्या में बड़े धूमधाम के साथ सार्वजनिक रूप से बलि दी जा रही है । यह मुद्दा उस जगह पर एक भव्य राम मंदिर [मंदिर] के निर्माण का नहीं है जहाँ कभी बाबरी मस्जिद खड़ी थी। मंदिर के निर्माण की वैधता भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के ‘प्रबंधन सहयोग’से सुनिश्चत की गयी थी। निष्पक्षता, क़ानून और सामान्य-बुद्धि के सभी मानदंडों को धता बताते हुए, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह स्वीकार करने के बावजूद मंदिर के निर्माण को मंज़ूरी दे दी कि अतीत में बाबरी मस्जिद बनाने के लिए किसी भी मंदिर को नष्ट नहीं किया गया था, 22-23 दिसंबर 1949 की रात को मस्जिद में राम लल्ला की मूर्तियों को रखना अवैध था, और 6 दिसंबर 1992 को हिंदुत्ववादी भीड़ द्वारा मस्जिद को नष्ट करना एक आपराधिक कृत्य था। इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं है कि सर्वोच्च अदालत को इन सब जानकारियों के बावजूद बाबरी मस्जिद के स्थान पर मंदिर बनाने को न्यायिक मंज़ूरी दे दी गयी।  दिसंबर 1992 को हिंदुत्व की उन्मादी और हिंसक भीड़ जो कुछ हासिल नहीं कर सकी थी, न्यायपालिका के माध्यम से उसे प्राप्त कर लिया गया।
https://www.hastakshep.com/the-vadh-annihilation-of-the-indian-republic/
FOR ENGLISH VERSION:
https://voiceofmargin.com/the-vadh-annihilation-of-the-indian-republic/

ایودھیا میں’ تاریخ کی غلطی‘ کو درست کیا گیا: اب مودی سرکار پوری کے جگناتھ مندر کو بودھ مذہب کے ماننے والوں کے حوالے کرے!!

آر ایس ایس کے پرچارک، کٹر سنگھی نریندر مودی کی ذاتی قیادت میں چل رہی آر ایس ایس-بی
جے پی کی موجودہ حکومت138 کروڑ ہندوستانیوں (جن میں سے 80 فیصد ہندو ہیں) کو روزگار ، تعلیم ، تحفظ اور امن وسکون کی فراہمی میں بری طرح سے ناکام ہوچکی ہے، لیکن اہل وطن کے دل بہلانے کے لیے 5  اگست  (2020) کو اس کے پاس ایک اچھی خبر تھی۔ قرون وسطیٰ کےکسی بادشاہ کے لباس میں ملبوس، ایک ہندو رِشی نظرآنے کی تمنا لیے ، زعفرانی لبادہ لپیٹےوزیر اعظم نے، ایودھیا میں رام مندر کا سنگ بنیاد رکھتے ہوئے یہ اعلان کیا کہ دنیا بھر کے ہندوؤں کی دیرینہ خواہش پوری ہوگئی،  بھگوان رام کی جائے پیدائش جسے تباہ کرنے کے لیے سیکڑوں برسوں سے کوششیں کی جارہی تھیں، آخرکار وہ آزاد ہوگئی۔بقول ان کےمندر کی بنیادمیں جس وقت سنگ ِبنیاد رکھا جارہا تھا، ہندوستان ایک ’’سنہرا باب‘‘ رقم کر رہا تھا۔ یہ سمجھنا ذرابھی مشکل نہیں تھا کہ بھارت سے مراد خود وہ تھے۔ انہوں نے اعلان کیا کہ ’’آج رام جنم بھومی صدیوں سے چلے آرہے انہدام اور احیاء کے سلسلے سے آزاد ہوگئی۔‘‘
[Https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ram-mandir-bhumi-pujan-full-text-of-pm-nareender-modis-speech-in-ayodhya/]
گوسوامی تلسی داس پر سوالیہ نشان
    ہمارے وزیر اعظم نریندر مودی اکثر جھوٹ بولتے پائے جاتے ہیں۔بابری مسجد کی تعمیر کے لئے رام کی جائے پیدائش کے انہدام سے متعلق بھی انھوں نے جھوٹ کا سہارا لیا۔ انہوں نے اس کے بارے میں جو کہا وہ آر ایس ایس کی شاکھاؤں میں وضع کردہ ’حقائق‘ ہیں جن کا عصری ’ہندو‘ دستاویزات اور ماخذ میں بھی کوئی ذکر نہیں ہے۔ ان کے مطابق ، ایودھیا میں رام مندر کو لے کرہندوؤں اور مسلمانوں کے مابین تقریبا پانچ صدیوں سےمسلسل جنگ چلی آرہی تھی۔
مخالفین (مسلمانوں) پر فتح کی شیخی بگھارتے وقت،مودی نے اودھی زبان میں تصنیف کردہ گوسوامی تلسی داس کے رزمیہ مہاکاویہ ’شری رام چرِت مانَس‘ کو مکمل طور پر نظر انداز کردیا۔ یہ وہی مہاکاویہ ہے، جس نے بھگوان رام کی کہانی کو مقبول کرکے ہر ہندوکے، خاص طور پر شمالی ہندوستان کے، من مندر میں جاگزیں کردیا ہے۔ گوسوامی تلسی داس نے اس مہاکاویہ کو 1575–76 میں تصنیف کیا تھا۔ ہندتووادیوں کے دعوے کے مطابق، رام کی جائے پیدائش کا مندر 1538-1539 کے دوران تباہ کردیا گیا تھا۔ تب، اس مندرکے مبینہ انہدام کے تقریباً 37 سال کے بعدتحریر کردہ ’شری رام چرِت مانَس‘ میں اس انہدام کا ذکر ہونا چاہیے تھا، لیکن ’شری رام چرِت مانَس‘ میں ایسا کوئی ذکر نہیں ہے۔
یہ سب کرکےکیا ہندتو ٹھیکیدار جن کی قیادت مودی کررہے ہیں، یہ ظاہر کرنے کی کوشش کر رہے ہیں کہ رام اور ان کے ’دربار‘ کے سب سے بڑے راوی اور عقیدت مند، تلسی داس نے اپنے تاریخی کام میں جان بوجھ کر حقیقت نہیں بتائی؟ کیا یہ گوسوامی تلسی داس کی معتبریت پر سوال اٹھانے کی کوشش نہیں ہے؟ کیا ہندتو کے ٹھیکیدار یہ کہنے کی کوشش کر رہے ہیں کہ گوسوامی تلسی داس رام کی جائے پیدائش پر انہدامِ مندر کے موضوع پر کسی خفیہ مقصد سے خاموش رہ گئے؟
یہاں یہ جاننا مناسب ہوگا کہ گوسوامی تلسی داس کےتین قریبی افراد نے اپنی سوانح عمری تحریر کی ہیں، لیکن ان میں بھی رام کی جائے پیدائش پر کسی مسجد کی تعمیر کا ذکر نہیں ہے۔
سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے کی توہین
رام جنم بھومی’’انہدام اور احیاء کے صدیوں پرانے سلسلے سے آزادہوئی‘‘،یہ دعویٰ کرکے وزیر اعظم ایودھیا سے متعلق 9 نومبر 2019 کو سپریم کورٹ کی جانب سے کئے گئے فیصلے کی علی الاعلان دھجیاں اڑا رہے تھے۔  اپنےاس فیصلے میں، عدالت نے کہا ہے کہ بابری مسجد کسی مندر کو مسمار کرکے نہیں بنائی گئی تھی۔ 22/23 دسمبر 1949 کی آدھی رات کو رام للا کا مجسمہ رکھنا غیرقانونی تھا اور 6 دسمبر 1992 کو ایودھیا میں بابری مسجد کا انہدام ’’قانون کی حکمرانی کی سنگین خلاف ورزی‘‘ تھا۔ اسی فیصلے نے اس حقیقت کی بھی نشاندہی کی ہے کہ ’’مسلمانوں کوغیر منصفانہ طریقے سے ایک مسجد سے محروم کیا گیا ہے، جو 450 سال پہلےباقاعدہ تعمیر کی گئی تھی‘‘۔ درحقیقت، ایودھیا میں وزیر اعظم کی تقریر کے لئے، ان کے خلاف توہین عدالت کا مقدمہ چل سکتا ہے۔
[Https://scrol.in/article/943337/no-the-supreme-court-did-not-uphold-the-claim-that-babri-masjid-was-built-by-demolishing-a-temple]
ہم نے دیکھا کہ کس طرح  ایک بے بنیاد اور مفروضہ کہانی کی بنا پربابری مسجد کی جگہ ایک عظیم الشان رام مندر تعمیر کیا جارہا ہے۔ نریندر مودی کی آر ایس ایس-بی جے پی حکومت کا دعوی ہے کہ وہ ماضی کی غلطیوں کو دور کرنے کے لئے پرعزم ہے۔ ہمیں یہ نہیں بھولنا چاہئے کہ اس سے متعلق بہت سے سنجیدہ پہلو ہیں جن کو نظرانداز نہیں کیا جاسکتا۔ اس کا سب سے بڑا مسئلہ یہ ہے کہ ہندوستانی تہذیب ، جسے خود آر ایس ایس کم از کم 5000 سال قدیم بتاتا ہے، اس میں سے صرف 700-800 سال کی مدت [جب ہندوستان پر حکومت کرنے / حملہ کرنے والے مسلم نام  والے رہے] کو غلطیوں کو درست کرنے کے لئے منتخب کیا گیا ہے۔ باقی 4200-4300 سالوں کی طرح جب مسلمان ہندوستان نہیں پہنچے تھے، سب ٹھیک تھا۔ آئیے، ہم ملک کی تاریخ میں ہونے والی ناانصافیوں سے متعلق خود’ہندو‘ماخذ کیا بتاتے ہیں، اس کا جائزہ لیتے ہیں۔
اس تناظر میں، یہ جاننا ضروری ہے کہ آر ایس ایس / ہندتو کے سب سے اہم مفکر اور آر ایس ایس کے دوسرے سربراہ، ایم ایس گولولکر نے محمود غزنوی کے ذریعہ 1025-26 میں سومناتھ مندر کی تباہی کے بارے میں کیا لکھا تھا:
’’ایک ہزار سال پہلے، ہمارے لوگوں نےہم پر حملہ کرنے  کے لیے غیر ملکیوں کو دعوت دی۔ آج بھی ایسا ہی خطرہ ہمارے اوپرمنڈلا رہا ہے۔ کس طرح سومناتھ کے عظیم الشان مندر کی بے حرمتی کی گئی  اور مسمار کیا گیا، یہ تو تاریخ کی بات ہوچکی ہے۔ محمودغازی(غزنوی) نے سومناتھ کی دولت اور شان و شوکت کے بارے میں سنا تھا۔ اس نے خیبر دَرّے کو عبور کیا اور سومناتھ کی دولت لوٹنے کے لئے ہندوستان میں قدم رکھا۔ اسے صحرا کا بھاری جنگل عبور کرنا پڑا۔ ایک وقت ایسا بھی تھا جب اس کے پاس اپنی فوج اور اپنے آپ کے لئے بھی غذا اور پانی نہیں تھا۔ اسے اس کے مقدر پر چھوڑ دیا گیا ہوتا تو وہ ختم ہو گیا ہوتا اور راجستھان کی گرم ریت  نے اس کی ہڈیوں کو جلاکر راکھ کردیا ہوتا۔لیکن نہیں، محمود غزنی (غزنوی) نے مقامی سرداروں کو یہ باور کرایا کہ سوراشٹر کے حکمراں اس کے خلاف توسیع پسندانہ عزئم رکھتے ہیں، انھوں نے اپنی حماقت اور تنگ دلی کی وجہ سے اس پر یقین کر لیا اور وہ اس کے ساتھ ہولیے۔ جب محمودغازی(غزنوی) نے مہان مندر پر حملہ کیا تو وہ ہندو تھے ، ہمارے لہوکے لہو، ہماری ہڈیاں اور گوشت، ہماری روح کی روح جو اس کی فوج کے ہراول تھے۔ سومناتھ کو ہندوؤں کےفعال تعاون سے ناپاک کیا گیا۔ یہ تاریخ کے حقائق ہیں۔‘‘
[MS Golwalkar’s speech in Madurai cited in ‘Organiser’ dated January 4, 1950, pp. 12, 15.]
اگر آر ایس ایس-بی جے پی حکومت ہندوستان کے ماضی میں کی گئی مذہبی ناانصافیوں کو درست کرنےکے تئیں واقعی سنجیدہ ہیں، تو انہیں پوری میں جگناتھ مندرکو بدھسٹوں کے حوالے کرنے کے لئے فوری طور پر کام شروع کردینا چاہئے۔ آر ایس ایس سوامی ویویکانند کو ہندتو کی سیاست اور احیاء پسند ہندو بھارت کا رہنما مانتی ہے۔ انہوں نے ہندوستان کے عظیم ماضی کے بارے میں بہت کچھ بتایا ہے۔ انہوں نے واضح طور پر کہا ہے کہ پوری کا جگناتھ مندر اصل میں بدھ مندر تھا۔ ان کے اعتراف کے مطابق،
’’ہر ایک کے لئے جو ہندوستانی تاریخ کے بارے میں جانتا ہے ... جگنّاتھ ایک قدیم بودھ مندر ہے۔ ہم نے اسے اور دوسروں کو بھی اپنے کنٹرول میں لیا اور ان کا ہندوکرَن کردیا۔ ہمیں ابھی اس طرح کے بہت سے کام کرنے ہوں گے۔ ‘‘
[Swami Vivekananda, ‘The Sages of India’ in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. 3, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta, p. 264.]
ہندتو ٹولی کے ایک اور بہت ہی پیارے بنکم چندر چٹرجی [’آنندمھو‘ اور ’وندے ماترم‘ کے مصنف]ہیں جو اسی حقیقت کی تصدیق کرتے ہیں۔ ان کے مطابق،  جگناتھ مندر کا ایک جزو لاینفک’رتھ یاترا‘ اصل میں بدھ مت کی ایک رسم تھی جو بدھ مت کے مندر کے ہندوکَرن کے بعد جاری رکھی گئی۔ بنکم چندر چٹرجی نے لکھا :
’’جنرل کننگھم(Cunningham) نے’ بھلسا ٹاپس‘‘ نامی اپنے مشہور کتاب میں رتھ اتسو (جگناتھ مندر سے متعلق) کی ابتدا کی جوتفصیل بیان کی ہے، اس کے تناظر میں مجھے ایک اور انتہائی مستند کہانی معلوم ہے۔ اس میں وہ بدھ مذہب کے اسی طرح کے جشن کے بارے میں بتاتے ہیں، جس میں بدھ مت کی تین علامتوں، بدھ ، دھرمّا اور سنگھ کی نمائندگی ایک ہی شکل میں ایک گاڑی میں کی گئی تھی، اور میں سمجھتا ہوں کہ وقت بھی وہی ہے جب رتھ (یاترا) نکلتا ہے۔ اس وضاحت کے حق میں میرے پاس ایک حقیقت ہے کہ جگناتھ، بلرام اور سبھدرا ، جن کی جھانکی اب رتھ میں دکھائی جاتی ہے ، بدھ ، دھرمّا اور سنگھ ہی کی تقریباً نقل ہیں۔ ‘‘
[Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, 'On the origin of Hindu festivals' in Essays & Letters, Rupa, Delhi, 2010, pp. 8-9.]
دراصل، یہ صرف پوری مندر ہی نہیں ہے جس کا ہندوکرَن کیا گیا۔ آریہ سماج کے بانی سوامی دیانند سرسوتی نے’ستیارتھ پرکاش‘ میں شنکراچاریہ کی تعریف کرتے ہوئے کہا:
’’دس سال تک انھوں (شنکراچاریہ) نے ملک کا دورہ کیا، جین مت کی تردید کی اور ویدک دھرم کو پھیلایا۔ زمین سے جو بھی ٹوٹی ہوئی مورتیاں کھودکر نکالی جاتی ہیں، وہ شنکر کے زمانے میں توڑی گئی تھیں اور کھدائی کے دوران جہاں سالم مورتیاں یہاں وہاں نکلتی ہیں، توڑے  جانے کے خوف سے جینیوں (جنھوں نے جین مت چھوڑ دیا تھا) ہی نے زمین میں دفن کر دی تھیں۔ ‘‘
)SATYARTH PRAKSH BY Swami Dayanand Sarswati, chapter  xi, p. 347.)
ہندتو حکمراں جو بدھ مت اور جین مت جیسے مذاہب کو سودیسی مان کراپنائیت کا مظاہرہ کرتے ہیں، انہیں چاہیے کہ جین مندروں اور بودھ ویہاروں کوجلد از جلد ان مذاہب کے پیروکاروں کے حوالے کرنے کا آغاز کریں۔
شمس الاسلام
14 اگست 2020

How and why have groups of people come to identify themselves as victims? How and why do states, social movements and other kinds of social interventionists recognize and work with communities and groups of people as victims? My departure from works like Empire of Trauma is that while the latter primarily concerns itself with trauma and its relation to claims for restitution, I seek to locate the origins of victimhood in a wider sense as a political stance, and how it has evolved in relation to a particular form of governance that emerged under colonialism.

As Madison argued both in 1833 and in 1787-88, majority rule reflects the best version of democratic governance given the limitations of human nature and our constitutional arrangements.
https://startingpointsjournal.com/on-madisons-majoritarianism/

While the rise of populism has been a global trend in recent years, it has been prevalent in Greece and Turkey for longer, leaving a strong imprint on the politics of both countries. Left-wing populism has become one of the constitutive elements of the Greek political party system since the collapse of the 1967-1974 military regime. The 2009 outbreak of the Greek economic crisis set the stage for the radicalization of Greek politics through the rise of extremist far-right and far-left populist parties that professed populist agenda of different hues. Such populists accused old-party personnel of being members of a "treacherous elite" that sacrificed Greek national interests against foreign powers. The 2011 "indignados" movement is key for the better understanding of the social dynamics that facilitated the rise of the unusual SYRIZA-ANEL coalition government. Debates on Greek constitutional reform also highlighted the relevance of populism, especially as the SYRIZA-ANEL government sought topics to resonate with its disenchanted voters. On the other hand, a right-wing populist rhetoric has been one of the key instruments for the rise of Turkish political Islam and the establishment of the AKP hegemony in Turkey. Establishing a Kulturkampf-based narrative about the "secularist, 'white-Turk' elites" versus the "conservative, 'black-Turk' people" was of great political significance. The constitutional reform process proved again crucial for manifesting the relevance of populism in Turkish political discourse. This article aims to explore the circumstances under which left-and right-wing populism have emerged into a dominant feature of Greek and Turkish politics. It also aims to explore the 2 decreasing relevance of the established left-right political divide in party politics and suggests alternative classifications.

Chapter in edited volume, 'Contemporary Turkey at a Glance,' based on the international conference “Contemporary Turkey at a Glance II – Turkey Transformed? Power, History, Culture”, which took place at Istanbul Bilgi University in October 2014.

In 1995, Utah became the first state to pass a bill prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states and nations.  Thereafter, in 2004, Utah voters approved a ballot referendum on Utah Constitutional Amendment 3, which defined marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman and which restricted unmarried civil unions.  This referendum was approved by 65.9% of those who voted on it.  That is, 593,297 Utah citizens (of the approximately 900,000 who voted) voted to approve the amendment. 

Then, in March of 2013, three couples filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, arguing that Amendment 3 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.  On December 20, 2013, the court ruled the amendment was unconstitutional, and, thus, one man overturned the vote of nearly 600,000 people.

Does it really make sense that one person should overrule a whole state?  If so, when does that make sense?  These questions warrant serious consideration, and more people should be troubled by cases like this and by the rules that courts often take upon themselves.  This is because, in the end, courts risk losing legitimacy if they deviate too far from perceived social and cultural norms when addressing legal issues.  Such a limitation is fundamental to the nature of the American legal system.

By examining American mechanisms of law enforcement, the relationship between the law-giver and the law-follower, and the implications of that relationship for courts and judges, it becomes clear that courts must be ever mindful of their role in American society.  They must remain always cognizant of social norms and mores, and that their failure to do so is to the peril of their own prerogatives and legitimacy.

अयोध्या में इतिहास की ग़लती सुधारी गई: अब मोदी सरकार पुरी का जगनाथ मंदिर बौद्धों को सौंपे!
आरएसएस के प्रचारक, धुर-संघी नरेन्द्र मोदी के निजी नेतृत्व में चल रही आरएसएस-भाजपा की मौजूदा सरकार 138 करोड़ भारतीयों (जिनमें से लगभग 80 प्रतिशत हिंदू हैं) को रोजगार, शिक्षा, सुरक्षा और शांति देने में तो बुरी तरह से नाकामयाब है, लेकिन देशवासियों का मन बहलाने के लिए 5 (2020) अगस्त को उसके पास एक शुभ समाचार था। किसी मध्यकालीन राजा की वेशभूषा में, एक हिन्दू ऋषी दिखने की कामना लिए, केसरिया लबादा लपेटे प्रधानमंत्री ने अयोध्या में राम मंदिर की आधारशिला रखते हुए ऐलान किया कि दुनिया भर के हिंदुओं की चिरप्रतिक्षित अभिलाषा आखिरकार पूरी हुई, भगवान राम की जन्मभूमि जिसे नष्ट करने के लिए सैकड़ों साल से कोशशें की जा रही थीं, आखिरकार वह मुक्त हो गयी। बकौल उनके मंदिर की नींव में जिस क्षण आधारशिला रखी जा रही थी, भारत  एक "सुनहरा अध्याय" लिख रहा था। यह समझना जारी भी मुश्किल नहीं था की भारत से मतलब ख़ुद वे थे।  उन्होंने ऐलान किया कि "आज, राम जन्मभूमि सदियों से चले आ रहे विध्वंस और पुनरुत्थान के चक्र से मुक्त हो गई।"
[Https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ram-mandir-bhumi-pujan-full-text-of-pm-narendra-modis-speech-in-ayodhya/]
गोस्वामी तुलसीदास पर प्रश्नचिन्ह
हमारे प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी अक्सर झूठ बोलते पाये जाते हैं। बाबरी मस्जिद के निर्माण के लिए राम जन्म-स्थान मंदिर के विध्वंस को लेकर भी उन्होंने झूठ का सहारा लिया। उन्होंने इस बारे में जो कहा वह आरएसएस की शाखाओं में घढ़े 'सच' हैं जिनका इतिहास के समकालीन 'हिन्दू' दस्तावेज़ों और स्त्रोतों में भी वर्णन नहीं है। उन के अनुसार, अयोध्या ने राम मंदिर को लेकर हिंदू और मुसलमानों के बीच लगभग पांच शताब्दियों तक लगातार युद्ध चला आ रहा था।
विरोधियों (मुसलमानों) पर जीत की शेखी बघारते समय, मोदी ने अवधी भाषा में रचित, गोस्वामी तुलसीदास के महाकाव्य 'श्रीरामचरितमानस' को पूरी तरह दरकिनार कर दिया । यह वही महाकाव्य है, जिसने भगवान राम की कहानी को लोकप्रिय करके हर हिंदू के मन-मंदिर में प्रतिष्ठित किया है, विशेषकर उत्तरी भारत में । गोस्वामी तुलसीदास ने 1575-76 में इस महाकाव्य की रचना की थी। हिंदुत्ववादियों के दावे के अनुसार राम जन्म-स्थान मंदिर 1538-1539 के दौरान नष्ट किया गया था। तब, राम जन्मस्थान मंदिर के कथित विध्वंस के लगभग 37 साल बाद लिखे गए 'श्रीरामचरितमानस' में इस विध्वंस का उल्लेख होना चाहिए था। लेकिन 'श्रीरामचरितमानस' में ऐसा कोई जिक्र नहीं है।
यह सब करके क्या हिंदुत्व के ठेकेदार जिन की अगवाही मोदी कर रहे हैं यह जतलाने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं कि राम और उनके 'दरबार' के सबसे बड़े कथाकार और भक्त तुलसीदास ने अपनी इस ऐतिहासिक रचना में जानबूझ कर सत्य नहीं बताया ? क्या यह गोस्वामी तुलसीदास की विश्वसनीयता पर सवाल उठाने की कोशिश नहीं है? क्या हिंदुत्व के ठेकेदार यह कहने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं कि गोस्वामी तुलसीदास राम के जन्म-स्थान पर मंदिर के विध्वंस के विषय पर किसी प्रच्छन्न उद्देश्य से मौन रह गये?
यहाँ यह जानना भी मुनासिब होगा की गोस्वामी तुलसीदास के 3 क़रीबी लोगों ने उनकी जीवनियां लिखीं हैँ लेकिन उनमें भी राम जनम-स्थान पर किसी मस्जिद के बनाए जाने का ज़िक्र नहीं है।

THE 'VADH'/ANNIHILATION OF THE INDIAN REPUBLIC
The sovereign-democratic Indian Republic came into existence on January 26, 1950, coinciding with the promulgation of a historic constitution which in its Preamble declared its firm commitment to "JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…"
This Republic is slated for public execution on August 5, 2020, with great pomp and show at Ayodhya. The issue is not building of a peerless Ram Temple [Temple] at the place where once Babri Mosque [Mosque] stood. The legitimacy for the construction of the Temple was 'managed' courtesy the highest court of justice of India. Betraying all norms of fair-play, rule of law and common sense, the Supreme Court approved construction of the Temple despite admitting also that no Temple was destroyed to build the Babri mosque in the past, it was illegal to place the Ram idols in the Mosque on the night of 22-23 December 1949 and destruction of the Mosque by the Hindutva mob on December 6, 1992, was a criminal act. There is no doubt that Temple has the judicial sanction despite the criticism that what Hindutva zealots could not achieve on December 6, 1992, was facilitated through judiciary....

https://www.counterview.net/2020/08/ram-temple-bhoomi-poojan-with-bhagwat.html
https://countercurrents.org/2020/08/the-vadh-annihilation-of-the-indian-republic/
https://voiceofmargin.com/the-vadh-annihilation-of-the-indian-republic/
https://www.frontierweekly.com/views/aug-20/5-8-20-The%20Annihilation%20of%20The%20Indian%20Republic.html
https://www.counterview.net/2020/08/ram-temple-bhoomi-poojan-with-bhagwat.html

Since the elections of 2002, Erdogan's AKP has dominated the political scene in Turkey. This period has often been understood as a break from a 'secular' pattern of state-building. But in this book, Ceren Lord shows how Islamist mobilisation in Turkey has been facilitated from within the state by institutions established during early nation-building. Lord thus challenges the traditional account of Islamist AKP's rise that sees it either as a grassroots reaction to the authoritarian secularism of the state or as a function of the state's utilisation of religion. Tracing struggles within the state, Lord also shows how the state's principal religious authority, the Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) competed with other state institutions to pursue Islamisation. Through privileging Sunni Muslim access to state resources to the exclusion of others, the Diyanet has been a key actor ensuring persistence and increasing salience of religious markers in political and economic competition, creating an amenable environment for Islamist mobilisation.

A short discussion surrounding the illiberal and undemocratic nature of government in Turkey, and the inherent flaw at the heart of the democratic process itself that provides legitimacy to such regimes.

This article is part of the Democracy Futures series, a joint global initiative between The Conversation and the Sydney Democracy Network.

Forced migration in the global south is a raging issue which is coupled with various other factors such as agricultural distress, climate change induced displacement, the rise in socio-political tensions. What complicates the entire field is the relation of migrants to the host communities where they are assigned with precarious jobs in the labour market to form the underclass. Migrants are mostly employed in the informal sector and less visible sectors which means there is a complete violation of labour laws thereby resulting in forced labour. Female migrants, including the refugees and the displaced are at a much greater danger of abuse and exploitation including trafficking. Migrants in the host communities also become a target ofprejudicial treatments, harassment, violence and ostracization.These vulnerabilities spring up even further if they are deemed to be illegal or unauthorised.Migrants are a lot more disadvantaged than non migrants and come to terms with additional discriminations in various forms. There are numerous reports which highlight their inadequate wages, poor and hazardous working environments, squalid living conditions and the heavy burden of work owing to their migrant status. They remain neglected in the sense that migrants are denied access to social security measures, including food and health programmes.Globally, there has been a political shift towards the far right which promotes majoritarianism and encourages xenophobia, often viewing the migrant as the "other" to be reviled. What is disturbing is the hardening of borders to the free movement of people in an era of globalisation of capital.

The discourse and politics of equidistance from majority communalism and minority communalism in India is flawed because it equates two unequal concepts. The Indian nationalist perspective on this equidistant stance focuses more on attacking minority communalism because it is perceived as a potential secessionist threat to India’s territorial integrity, while majority communalism—although it could develop into fascism—does not threaten India’s territorial integrity. The secular fundamentalist perspective, through its theoretical rejection of religious groups, ends up, in practice, reinforcing the existing power of the majority communal group. The perspective of institutionalised Hindu communalism rejects the equivalence approach on the grounds that majoritarian communalism pervades multiple institutions in India and increases the vulnerability of India’s religious minorities. It can only be defeated from an egalitarian perspective by recognising the social, cultural and political power of religion.

This article critically analyses the 2018 Brahma Committee Report and the draft 'New Land Policy' passed by the Assam state cabinet last year, and slated to be discussed in the Assembly soon. Both these documents push a grossly narrow definition of "indigenous", and seen in context of the BJP regime, can create a precarious ant-Muslim land regime.

This essay confronts the legacy of the Secession Reference from the perspective of the periphery of the European Union: its external (Kosovo and Montenegro) and its internal (Catalonia and Spain) periphery. The main gift of Secession Reference to contemporary constitutional theory is not a broader understanding of democracy, as some claim, but rather an opportunity to look at democracy, self-determination, federalism, and popular sovereignty through a more nuanced—and hopefully analytically more productive—lens of constitutional sensitivity and institutional responsiveness. From that perspective, the main domestic achievement of the Secession Reference achieved was not a more democratic, but a more selectively responsive Canada. In asking for more sensitivity towards secessionist aspirations, the Reference encourages us to approach our democratic intuitions—whatever they may be—more reflectively and systematically. That—and not the internationally influential language of clarity and remedy—is its most important, yet unfortunately still not fully recognized, intellectual legacy.

The credit for creating this mess goes mainly to the Supreme Court. The original demand of the Assam Movement that all non-Assamese should be thrown out has been converted by the RSS/BJP leaders into Muslims versus others.
Now we should wait for the demand from the MOOLNIWASI or original inhabitants of India, Dravidians and tribals that all 'outsiders' should be identified.
Please read editorial of The Indian Express ('Who is a citizen', July 31, 2018)
https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/sponsored-lifestyle/a-fathers-plea-please-help-me-give-my-son-the-future-he-deserves-5276029/

Modern nations are products of migration, and all the richer for it. NRC process doesn’t seem alive to this reality.
Reproduced with thanks to The Indian Express

The concept of democracy has been revised many times from past in the context of content and meaning. This concept is emerged as different application forms in different times and societies. Democracy, which varies with different content, represents values for administration of public to conceptualize. Democracy which Robert Dahl made a major contribution in theory various instruments such as; free voters, fairy elections, civil society and politicians restricting by law. Moreover, Developing countries generally prefer " Majoritarianism " while developed countries prefer " pluralism " , as defined by J. Madison and A. Tocqueville, as a kind of democracy. Additionally, the concept of " multitude " represents absolute democracy according to Hardt and Negri. Also, Laclau and Mouffe have named the concept of " radical democracy ". By drawing theoretical framework of concept of majoritarianism, pluralism and multitude this study aims to evaluate relationship between these concepts and examples in Turkey. The examples which determine these study's limits are generally preferred about current issues. The position of democracy in Turkey according to mentioned concepts will be discussed at the end of study.

The Greek government has initiated a constitutional reform process which would involve unprecedented levels of public participation and enhance the majoritarian features of Greek democracy while not threatening the official status of the Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, the proposed reforms are unlikely to be adopted and may simply deflect attention from continued controversial austerity policies.

Les approches épistémiques fondent notre confiance en la démocratie sur sa capacité à susciter les bonnes décisions. Mais comment la masse peu éclairée des citoyens pourrait-elle avoir plus de chances de faire de meilleurs choix qu'une élite mieux informée ? Le « théorème du jury » de Nicolas de Condorcet (1785) indique une réponse possible, reposant sur la loi des grands nombres. Dans une situation de décision collective face à un choix binaire, la majorité aura d'autant plus de chances de se prononcer en faveur de la bonne option que les votants sont nombreux (les probabilités agrégées convergeant rapidement vers 1, c'est-à-dire la certitude 2 ), dès lors que les votants sont minimalement compétents (qu'ils ont une chance supérieure à un demi de trouver la réponse correcte), indépendants et sincères. Ce théorème se prête de façon particulièrement évidente à une interprétation favorable à la démocratie (la sagesse du nombre). Mais ses conditions paraissent si restrictives qu'il semble condamné à décevoir : dès lors que les votants sont trop faiblement compétents ou qu'il existe plus d'une alternative, les résultats s'inversent, et toute violation de l'hypothèse d'indépendance (violation que Condorcet associait aux communications entre les votants) supprime l'avantage du nombre. L'ouvrage de Robert E. Goodin, et Kai Spiekermann est le fruit d'une collaboration de plus de 12 ans 3 et opère la synthèse de 30 ans de réflexion collective sur la signification du théorème du jury pour la théorie de la démocratie 4 . Leur ambition, contre le scepticisme jusqu'ici dominant, est de donner à ce théorème une seconde vie en montrant que l'assouplissement convenable de ses hypothèses permet d'en adapter l'application à un grand nombre de situations politiques familières. La première partie du livre est de ce point de vue déterminante. D'abord, les auteurs montrent qu'il n'est pas nécessaire que tous les votants soient compétents (ou le soient également). Ce qui compte est plutôt la compétence moyenne 1 Texte ici augmenté de quelques précisions. 2 Pour donner un exemple chiffré, si chaque votant a 51 pourcents de chances de sélectionner la réponse correcte, la probabilité qu'un groupe de mille personnes sélectionnent cette réponse au moyen d'un vote à la majorité est de 69 pourcents et elle s'élève à 99,97 pourcents pour un groupe composé de dix-mille personnes. 3 Robert E. Goodin a cosigné son premier article sur le sujet dès du groupe. Le seuil de compétence est en outre peu exigeant : il n'y a pas de raison de penser que la totale ignorance aboutisse à une chance plus faible que le hasard de sélectionner la bonne option. L'obstacle principal consiste donc dans l'existence de biais systématiques (qui affectent aussi -avec des conséquences moins désastreuses -l'hypothèse d'indépendance) plutôt que dans l'ignorance des électeurs, qui peuvent emprunter des « raccourcis informationnels » et prendre conseils auprès des autres. Ensuite, l'hypothèse d'indépendance n'implique nullement que le vote des uns ne soit pas influencé par les arguments des autres. David Estlund avait déjà montré que l'indépendance causale et l'indépendance statistique sont deux choses différentes : ainsi, que A et B lisent les mêmes journaux, discutent entre eux ou suivent le même leader peut affecter la formation de leur avis sans que le choix de A dépende statistiquement du choix de B 5 . Mais les auteurs ajoutent que l'indépendance statistique parfaite serait un objectif à la fois irréaliste et indésirable. Il est souhaitable que les votes soient positivement corrélés à un état du monde (sur lequel il s'agit justement de statuer) et à la fiabilité des signaux qui l'indiquent.