Democracy and Social Order
I. The Rules of the Game
Simply put, Democracy is the rule of majority. Consequently, it is not necessarily the rule of truth and justice, although the way it has been traditionally presented to the masses, at least in the Western world, does not seem to make this crucial distinction. And even if they do, such views are deliberately repressed in favor of more optimistic ones. The last few years have even seen the forced export of democracy. Whether it has been the right approach is yet to be seen, but undoubtedly it has changed some lives -the lives of those who were oppressed by the earlier existing form of Governments. For example, the women in parts of Afghanistan are presumably better off with the removal of the Talibans. This point deserves more analysis. At the heart of democracy lies the concept of majority and minority, a chasm that is central to the very existence of a democracy. These factions can be based on Philosophies (Communists Vs Capitalists), Issues (Liberals Vs Conservatives), Religion, Race, Classes or even Language (eg. Sinhalese Vs Tamils in 1956). When an existing form of Government is forcibly replaced by a democratic framework, the roles of the majority and the minority may be reversed as well. However Democracy, by definition, requires that any such alteration in power be brought in by the masses themselves, and until such an alteration in power is realized, the existing majority act as the oppressor of the minority. The idea that a Democratic framework is the best and a viable solution for any country is perhaps a bit presumptuous or misguided. Its success as a form of Governance depend greatly on existing social and religious structures, as evidenced by the recent wars.
II. Social Order
The minority can rarely conform to the decision of the majority, and hence terms like 'freedom of speech' attain supreme importance. The minority can only grieve and protest till the next electoral season. Free speech is the channel through which the upset minority gets to discharge its anti-incumbency rhetoric, without it peaceful coexistence would undoubtedly be harder to achieve. The accumulation of anger would otherwise manifest itself though violence and anarchy. Whenever the Government in a Democratic framework tries to stifle the voice of the minority, clashes in ideology leaves the premises of Parliament and emerges in the open streets. In such circumstances, those citizens who had once voted the incumbent to power will withdraw their support, their desire to fight power will grow stronger and their inherent mob mentality will take over their law-abiding instincts. History has records of many such events.
But the chain of events do not always follow the above pattern. Sometimes the incumbent manages to hold on to the people's confidence in spite of all their wrong-doing and labels the minority voices as 'reactionary' or 'anarchists'. One effective tried and tested strategy of winning over the ignorant masses has been 'fear mongering'. Human beings are insecure by nature, as evidenced by their need to conjure up an invisible Supreme power who can protect them from dangers. Such insecurities manifest themselves in xenophobia, homophobia etc. Exploiting these insecurities has been at the heart of many political moves.
But the chain of events do not always follow the above pattern. Sometimes the incumbent manages to hold on to the people's confidence in spite of all their wrong-doing and labels the minority voices as 'reactionary' or 'anarchists'. One effective tried and tested strategy of winning over the ignorant masses has been 'fear mongering'. Human beings are insecure by nature, as evidenced by their need to conjure up an invisible Supreme power who can protect them from dangers. Such insecurities manifest themselves in xenophobia, homophobia etc. Exploiting these insecurities has been at the heart of many political moves.
III. Demagoguery
Mencken described demagogues as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots". The cynic in him was astute in this observation. Falsifying ideas, demonizing opponents and other targets, melodrama and rhetoric are only some of the tools used by demagogues. Most parts of the world have witnessed the shrewdness of demagogues in appealing and motivating the masses. Europe saw the rise of Hilter and Mussolini, while India has more recently seen the rise of parties peddling Hindutva ideology that foments religious intolerance for gaining political power.
IV. The Role of Justice
An independent Judiciary is a principle tenet of Democracy. However such a system can hardly be realized if judges are appointed by the executive or legislature instead of an internal process within the judiciary. Partisan judges are in glaring contradiction with the principles of Democracy. The judiciary system in United States has been under criticism for similar reasons. The judiciary system is supposed to uphold the rights of the citizens, and especially that of the minorities, which it would fail to do without the impartiality expected of judges.
V. The Question of Rights
The rights that the citizens enjoy in a democracy are those that are permissible under the existing social and cultural norms of that country. Therefore individuals in a democracy are forced into accepting only a subset of human rights and be content with it. The majority (or the legislature) once again gets to decide which rights are to be included in that subset. Only an impartial judiciary can thwart any possibility of violating some fundamental human rights by a paranoid majority. However even the judiciary may be too weak in front of the zealot majority. We have witnessed abuse of power by the Government in many democratic nations. Sometimes the paranoia and suspicion leads to a growing number of enemies of their watch list and such developments are not only detrimental to foreign policy but also for the citizens. Even the citizens become the suspect, the paranoia turns inward and finds solace in labeling the minority as the enemy of the State. This can only end in widening the rift and self-destruction of the country. Governments have often suspected their opponents of colluding with enemies and branded any disgruntled citizen as disloyal, if not a terrorist. Nationalist sentiments are expected to be shown publicly at every opportunity and any criticism of the Government's functioning raises suspicion of being 'unpatriotic'. In such situations, the minority is often driven to fight for themselves. A Democracy that justifies all compromises on the human rights as a necessity for an effective response to the enemies fail to live up even to the already weak fundamentals of democracy on which their system is based.
Another trait of a Democracy that is weak is the recognition of the violation of human rights but unwillingness to act on them under the pretext of more important issues that need to be resolved. Often this more important issue comes in the form of a 'security threat'. Again 'patriotic' citizens are expected to compromise until the impending 'threat' is over- the underlying assumption being that mere 'existence' is more important than even the basic 'rights'. Thus often in democracies, ignorance trumps reason, fear trumps freedom, survival trumps happiness.
Another trait of a Democracy that is weak is the recognition of the violation of human rights but unwillingness to act on them under the pretext of more important issues that need to be resolved. Often this more important issue comes in the form of a 'security threat'. Again 'patriotic' citizens are expected to compromise until the impending 'threat' is over- the underlying assumption being that mere 'existence' is more important than even the basic 'rights'. Thus often in democracies, ignorance trumps reason, fear trumps freedom, survival trumps happiness.
2 comments:
It is strange how forced democracy has led to the election of protectionists in Venezuela, religious fundamentalists in Palestine, misogynists in Afghanistan and communists in Vietnam - exactly the elements that were targeted during the imposition of democracy.
I think a lesson that we need to learn is that popular ideas from earlier tyrannies will express themselves in popular governments. I do feel the argument that the majority should not prevail if it is self-destructing or if the electorate is not 'qualified' is fundamentally flawed because we impose our idea of what is right and wrong on people who simply don't share the same ethics and morals with the rest of us.
I did a survey among the philosophy graduate students: What deserves a higher punishment? The average rape or the average murder? The results were divided almost entirely on cultural lines.
Where culture is involved, there is no way we can say what is good and what is bad.
Irrespective of culture, it can be said with almost certainty that the majority's opinion is useless as they are not qualified to make decisions for themselves, and this is irrespective of culture and race. And when I say that I am not talking about third world nations where democratic ideas are being forcibly exported, I am talking even of the source of these ideas- the established democracies themselves. Their majority is equally ignorant and self absorbed in their ideas without ever questioning them.
Post a Comment