Democracy and the limitations of inclusivity

    Democracy in todays world is a widely accepted and cherished form of politico-socio-economic system. The values that it entails and the range of its inclusion is wide and has given space for individual freedom and liberty while simultaneously maintaining the order in the society.

    Even though democracy is inclusive, the inclusivity it entails is highly unequal for those who own resources and those who own their labour. There is a growing tendency of an entrepreneurship and a business culture in the society mainly focussing on gaining monetary benefits in a short span of time. But again here, there is a visible advantage to the ones who already own some resources. Democracy has ensured to a certain extent an equality of opportunity for its stake holders but still there is a need to create a level playing field to truly follow the democracy in its letter and spirit.

    Even inclusivity has its own limitations. Any country has strict boundaries when it comes to its borders. Countries are emotionally attached to its borders and are rigid in this matter. This is necessary in order to maintain the unity and integrity of the country as a whole. A country tends to include people within its boundaries in the development process. Any country will tend to alienate migrants especially the illegal ones. This is due to the limited nature of the natural resources and the high pressure and constraints that already exists. Many natural resources like land, water, minerals, etc. triggers an emotional response from the people. Naturally if any country tries to accommodate people from outside neglecting the citizens, there will be protests. Assam is a case in example for this trend. The case of illegal migration from Bangladesh to Assam during 1971 and thereafter has made the locals feel alienated in their own country. They are afraid that the resources will get divided, opportunities snatched and their culture decimated through slow progress of demographic change. The Assam accord signed in 1985 has now been taken to task after the Supreme Court intervention. Here the question is " How can we tend to the migrants when we cannot tend to our own people?".

    Hence there is a limitation on the inclusivity that any country can adopt. This inclusivity must be in favour of all the people residing within the nation while also protecting the citizens from unnecessarily competing with the illegal migrants. Now when it comes to humanitarianism, the country should take up talks with the the country of origin of the migrants and bilaterally come to a solution which is agreeable to both sides and amicably solved so that the dignity of the migrant as an individual is protected. This becomes the true definition of universal inclusivity.