First, Know What Democracy Means
I’ve
never understood those who shout about democracy being murdered in India
(Modi), US (Trump) and UK (Brexit). All of them won elections/referendums, so
how exactly did democracy get murdered? And then I read this article by Shany Mor aptly titled “Nobody Understands Democracy Anymore”.
Her article is a consolidated review of multiple books on the topic and thereby
she stumbles on the problem:
“What the books
have in common, beyond their shared subject matter, is a common confusion over
what democracy actually is.”
On one
of the books, she summarizes:
“His book is
clearly informed by a certain nostalgia for the postwar consensus of strong but
limited liberal tolerance, a welfare state undergirded by a broad social
solidarity, and a deference for cultural and political elites enforced by
shared media that were occasionally publicly owned and nearly always publicly
minded.”
But in
recent times, we have been seeing a decoupling of liberalism from democracy,
termed as “illiberal democracy” (That refers to a rise in “populism,
xenophobia, majoritarianism, and attacks on the press”, world-over).
Those
outraged by the rise of this illiberal democracy don’t see their own actions
are a subversion of the very democracy they claim to uphold!
“Certain
putatively democratic forces are undermining the rule of law and at the same
time certain putatively liberal forces are undermining popular sovereignty.”
All of
this leads to the question: is there any
connection between democracy and good government? If there seemed to be a
connection in the past (as per the supporters of liberal democracy), was that
just a “happy accident” or was it a “magic formula”? A question that draws
attention to the elephant in the room: a “decidedly nondemocratic China” that
is only getting richer.
Mor’s
own take on all this? People are equating things that are not the same:
“Voting is not the
same as democracy. Ruling is not the same as electing. Competence is not the
same as suffrage. Governing is not the same as lawmaking. And appointing, even
by election, is not the same as representing.”
And she
ends with a warning to the liberals:
“Law can’t just be
a nondemocratic means for imposing a liberal agenda, if only because it will
eventually become a nondemocratic means for imposing an illiberal agenda.”
Actually,
that very point (imposing a liberal
agenda) is what has triggered this backlash we see today.
Yes. That's the way of political maneuvering! At all times, the basic method remains the same - projecting and marketing chosen ideologies so as to sway people. What varies is the choice of ideology that suits the time and environs. One has only to wait till "this grape is sour" and chose simply another grape variety!
ReplyDeleteThat way, politics is quite interesting.
Communism or its later avatar "welfare state not amounting to communism" can be marketed today outside Europe where it took roots, by cleverly clothing it in a different guises. In a partly poor and partly rich countries like India, there is no way any politician can avoid "too much of socialism and over-governance". That was what was greatly disliked by the Americans in earlier times. In India there is cut throat competition for sops, it is a political compulsion!