Democracy and its discontents

Any observer of society and politics will recognise the troubling state of politics in India. The protracted impasse in parliament and the hostile relations between the ruling party and the Opposition is evidence enough. From the conduct of the political class, it appears that our democratic practice is regressive, rather than progressive. There are a growing number of fringe political issues that dominate. Political ideology to advance liberty, equality and fraternity – the constitutional goals -- has manifestly weakened. The political elites are losing their ability to shape the narrative or protect their safe havens and reputations. Information and technology now allow anyone, even anonymous individuals, to question powerful elites or conglomerates. Governments can no longer conceal critical information, and the public now has access to information that it did not have, say, two decades ago, on a wide range of topics. The rich and powerful are being exposed as more of their flaws become apparent.

It was clear early in this millennium that we had entered a new information order. According to a study by the University of California at Berkeley, more information was generated in 2001 than ever before in human history, and the information generated in 2002 more than doubled that in 2001, adding 23 ‘exabytes’ of new information. Consider what emerged from the findings: Evidence cannot be limited to only authoritative sources; second, the new information exposed the limitations of the existing public discourse that focuses less on issues of public concern and more on politically motivated questions. Modern society faces numerous challenges as a result of information democratisation: imperfections and poor outcomes are not always indicative of a conspiracy or malicious intent. We should pay less attention to those who only condemn and blame, and instead support those who work constructively to resolve conflicts or find solutions.

How does the discontent with democracy manifest in political discourse? Consider the following: First, the growing tendency across political parties to question the legitimacy and credibility of the institutions of democracy. If a court judgement is not to my liking, I berate the judge and the judiciary; if the election results are not in my favour, I fault the Electronic Voting Machine and run down the Election Commission; second, the widespread political malaise of conflating two unrelated events or ideas when responding to real-world problems. The disqualification of a lawmaker as a result of a court-ordered conviction under the law is a fact; that this is the result of a conspiracy with the intent of suppressing democratic voice is an assumption. Conflating the two leads gullible audiences to believe they are cause and effect. Faith in the judiciary is the foundation for the rule of law in society. The convoluted political discourse is thus redefining what is important and what is not for the public; and sowing the seeds of doubt in foundational institutions.

Despite democratisation of information challenging the old hierarchies of power, money, and learning, the bottom-up egalitarian network of citizens faces the risk of strife-ridden outcomes rather than constructive mobilisation for protest. As a result, democratised information presents a conundrum for modern society. Whatever sources we use to research a public concern, the citizen is left in a state of uncertainty, a seemingly permanent state of analysis. Uncertainty undermines authority. Even as the monopoly on information is lost, so is citizen trust. A CBI raid, an Enforcement Directorate assessment, or a newspaper investigative report take on an arbitrary quality, appearing to the public to be based on moral prejudice rather than evidentiary or intellectual rigour. When the extent of proof for or against in a particular case approaches infinity, a cloud of suspicion about cherry-picking data hangs over the actions of those in authority. The consequence is that public discourse is restricted to topics of interest to the political class or articulate power elites. Science, technology, philosophy, the environment, and other life-altering issues are frequently met with silence or indifference.

We are witnessing a defining contest in public life between two modes of organising society; one hierarchical and top-down, and the other, egalitarian and bottom-up. The two modes appear incapable of reaching an agreement. Observing political developments, one does notice cycles of superficial reforms to increase inclusion and open up the system in order to advance liberty and equality, but these are often followed by hardened repression.

What matters is not that the power elite will resist any challenge to its authority; rather, this simply indicates the range of options available to it. The stark reality across the political spectrum is that those who represent authority, whether in government or in the Opposition, have a sense of entitlement that they belong to a class of people, who have convinced themselves that they alone have the authority and legitimacy to speak and act, supposedly for public good; and indulge in doublespeak in equal measure. They would have you believe that this is not for selfish reasons; it is for the greater good. Any challenge to them, no matter how minor, constitutes a violation of the order and must be suppressed in the name of all that is good and true.

The current political unrest is the result of denigrating the institutions of democracy, the parliament and the judiciary included. It is a crisis of legitimacy. We are trapped between an old world that can no longer sustain us intellectually or ethically, and a new one that is emerging as its polar opposite. Many of the old world’s prized possessions -- liberal democracy, tolerance and fraternity, and economic stability -- can no longer be taken for granted. We must find ways to reaffirm the legitimacy of ethical democratic process. A good place to start would be for our lawmakers to learn to listen to one another; perhaps then they will be able to accept change, and the impermanence of hierarchical authority. For this to happen, the citizens must speak truth to power. There is no other path to reinforce the democratic tradition. The road to a mature democracy is long and arduous.

(The writer is Director, Ramaiah Public Policy Centre, and Director, School of Social Sciences, MS Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)