Making Democracy Work

Republic Day celebrations at BJP headquarters in Srinagar on Jan 26, 2017.

As we celebrate the 68th Republic Day, it’s time to appreciate the challenges that are threatening the Nation. For, if one has not worked, one will not value. And the generation that has worked for the political independence of India is slowly waning physically and also from the memory of the citizenry.

According to Aristotle, the famous Greek Philosopher who was also the Guru to Alexander, there are six different forms of government: the “royalty” (one individual rules for common good) and its deviation (can be read as “negative imagery”); the “tyranny” (one individual rules for self-interest); the “aristocracy” (a few rule for the common good) and its deviation the “oligarchy” (a few rule for their self-interest); and finally the “polity” (many rule for common good) and its deviation the “democracy” (many rule for their self-interest). Hence democracy is a not a preferable form of government, and its inherent nature is to divide the community that embraces it. In-fact Aristotle advocated “royalty” to be the most preferable form of government. However, in the real world, idealism is a mirage. Thus, there exists a lack of control on the appropriate selection criteria and attributes that can select a royal, resulting in an emergence of a tyrant. And history is witness to many such tyrants who ensured a permanent graveyard of their citizenry and civilization. A reading of the Delhi Sultanate will provide enough indicators of a tyrant. Therefore democracy is the best of the worst options, for at least many have a chance to benefit from such governance. Aristotle terms it as the “most tolerable”, for the majority discontent finds a channel to express itself.

This idea of democracy was provided a more real world definition by Joseph Schumpeter, a Professor of Economics at Harvard University, in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. According to him, democratic societies are not governed by people (or a majority taken as a representative of a whole); rather in the real world, they find themselves governed by elected officials, non-elected political party, and the bureaucrats. The elected officials pursue policies that help them avoid frequent referendums (elections) or what they deem fit. Hence democratic governments are always on a lookout for possible threats, and there remains a high probability that most of its actions are populist, devoid of reason and deviating away from common good. Moreover, as far as common good is concerned, there is little common that exists. It is evident neither in the motives of the voters (who vote based on private preferences) nor even in the intentions of the majority (where the motives vary with every person casting the ballot).  Still democracy is preferable, for at least a majority benefit by providing signals of their demands and dislike thus making the elected officials function. The opposition, despite being the alternative voice, which is often touted as the voice of the critique, has in reality little clout in democracy. They do little and have the power to do little. The only way they can really contribute is by strengthening the policies of the elected officials while highlighting their cooperation to the electorate, trying to win back favors.

To derive the maximum benefit from such an imperfect system, Dr. Ambedkar had sounded out three recommendations during his last address to the Constituent Assembly in Nov. 1949.  First, he advised holding fast to the Constitutional methods of achieving the social and economic objectives of the Nation. The “bloody methods of revolution,” that also includes the methods of civil disobedience, noncooperation and Satyagraha ought to be abandoned. He labeled these methods as grammars of anarchy and advised for a quick purge of these from the Nation. The only methods ought to be embraced vote in the booth and voice on the floor. A role reversal of these in recent times has cost the Nation massive administrative hours (on the road and inside the Parliament), which could have been fruitfully employed elsewhere. Dr. Ambedkar’s second advice was to abandon hero worship, which according to him is a road to degradation and leads to an eventual dictatorship. He was prophetic enough to foresee this, for a quarter of a century later India saw its first dictator post-independence under the Congress Party. Hero worship does not allow the electorate to demand, but to tolerate. Hero worship is the reason why a family, whose scion frequently provides evidence on a strong grasp on nothing, had been accorded omnipotence by more able men. Hero worship is the reason why a family in Uttar Pradesh is having 22 members from within it, rule the State in various capacities (from Chief Minister to Member of Parliament). Hero worship is also the reason why a family in Bihar could put an illiterate woman to lead the state, getting promoted overnight to Chief Minister from a homemaker without getting to know her electorate (this is NOT women empowerment). Hero worship had made these families prosper while their electorate is still stuck on an ancient definition of prosperity. And the last recommendation that Dr. Ambedkar provided was to convert the political democracy to a social democracy. That according to him is dismantling the edifice of caste and providing equal opportunities for all. This is easier said than done and thanks to “positive discrimination” advised by him once, paranoia has significantly settled in over years. The recent Patidhar Andolan as well as the Jat Revolution were the results of this fear that has crippled few communities. This is also the reason why the recent success of a lady IAS aspirant has become the cause of mockery among a few (the numbers in the “few” are huge). Positive discrimination has failed. While the thesis of equality advocated by Dr. Ambedkar needs no second thought, yet the structure that had been put in place demands a revision. The assumptions/observations that guided his thought once have changed. Accordingly, the structure of affirmative action needs to change.

Democracy provides an opportunity to work for individual good and hopefully while pursuing this, the community as a whole benefits. It provides a vitality of conflict and hence it’s noisy. But it’s time to recommit ourselves to convert this noise to a voice, the voice of India. Wish you a Happy Republic Day.