The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Winston Churchill Liberty doesn't work as well in practice as it does in speeches. Will Rogers Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements. Agnes Repplier The first requisite of civilization is that of justice. Sigmund Freud Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. Alexander Tytler The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was greatest before there was any civilization. Sigmund Freud Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame. Laurence J. Peter Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock. Sigmund Freud Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. Oscar Wilde
Esta madrugada, en este undécimo día de protestas en Egipto, y que quizás también sea la undécima hora en que EEUU pueda demostrar al mundo como copar con la agitación de países en desarrollo, recibí un correo electrónico de Anuradha Kataria, autora de “Democracia a Prueba, ¡Todos Arriba!” Mas oportuno no pudo haber sido, dado el curso de la política mundial últimamente, desde el Norte de África al Medio Oriente, con descontento popular hacia los regimenes autocráticos allí arraigados.
Kataria, quien en su libro hizo uso de una larga cita de un articulo que escribí en marzo de 2010, “Resultados en Irak confirmaran, pero no otorgaran poder”, parece que tendrá su teoría puesta a prueba una vez mas. Su libro cuestiona que la democracia sea el modelo político correcto bajo todos los contextos socioeconómicos. Y eso es algo que vengo observando por décadas, sin el rigor analítico de un investigador académico.
El camino hacia la democracia, bien sea mediante revolución o evolución, es bastante diferente para una nación que posee una clase media extensa y educada, que para una nación donde la población es rural, pobre y conservadora (tradicionalista). En la última, de acuerdo con Kataria, la democracia lleva al uso subversivo del “poder del pueblo”. Claro que el uso de la palabra “subversivo” se le puede considerar como tendencioso.
Estados Unidos ha seguido la tradición británica, digamos el modelo, en lidiar con la agitación y confusión mas allá de sus fronteras, desde el momento en que surgió como nación: todos los gobiernos estadounidenses, sin excepción, siempre han insistido, y a menudo demandado, que los gobiernos de otros países sean amistosos a este país y, si es necesario, serviles a sus intereses. Aunque el Departamento de Estado haya siempre mantenido el fomento inequívoco de derechos civiles y libertad para el mundo entero, la realidad es que ha aceptado dictaduras, u otra forma de gobierno autocrático cuando lo ha considerado necesario para lograr los objetivos económicos y militares de Norteamérica. ¡Ese es un hecho irrefutable que continua hoy día! Un hecho que es complementado por otra realidad: que, de forma abrumadora, los norteamericanos están de sumo acuerdo con su gobierno en materia de imperio y auto-intereses... la libertad y derechos civiles aparentando tener una definición menos estricta cuande se aplica a personas que viven al otro lado de nuestras fronteras.
Latinoamérica siempre ha sido el perfecto ejemplo para una política exterior basada en auto-intereses que data del siglo antepasado; la proclamación de la Doctrina Monroe y la incursión forzada de EEUU en ámbitos económicos, sociales y políticos que por cualquier razón ocurrieran en el hemisferio americano. Esa arrogante doctrina es algo que parece haber sido replicado por Israel y su declarado propio “hemisferio” que aparentemente incluye todo el Oriente Medio.
Lo que aparentemente concierne mas a la Casa Blanca durante esta revuelta popular en Egipto, revuelta que posiblemente tenga raíces económicas mas que políticas, tiene menos que ver con la libertad que los egipcios puedan tener en expresar su descontento, que con el grado de amistad que un nuevo régimen pueda tener con Israel. Desde el comienzo de la revuelta, el Departamento de Estado de EEUU puso en claro al mundo entero que la Hermandad Musulmana era un elemento inaceptable en cualquier revuelta, o en la posibilidad de compartir poder alguno en el futuro de Egipto. ¡Al cuerno el hecho de que esa organización pueda ser la voz del 20 por ciento o mas de la población egipcia, o de que este grupo se haya expresado al Occidente con tono amistoso y de coexistencia! De la misma forma que EEUU demostró su intransigencia con Hamas después que ellos ganasen las elecciones palestinas en enero del 2006, nos da a conocer de nuevo su terquedad al negar la realidad de lo que la Hermandad Musulmana representa. Existe una línea directa entre Washington y Tel Aviv que suplanta cualquier otro tipo de comunicación. Y eso es, y continuara siendo, un obstáculo insuperable para la paz del mundo.
Una cosa de la que podemos estar seguros es que la situación en Egipto está causando un nerviosismo económico global, aunque la probabilidad de que el Canal de Suez se cierre es casi cero. Algo así seria el colmo de la estupidez no importa cual fuera el gobierno de Egipto: autocrático, democrático o con raíces fundamentalistas fuertes. Quizás el peligro mayor radica en el temor mismo y la posibilidad del extremo acaparamiento de grano por países como Arabia Saudita, Argelia o el mismo Egipto... algo que pudiera traer metástasis a la disputa política.
Aunque pensemos de la democracia como parte, si no la solución en total de los problemas del mundo en desarrollo, no nos vendría mal prestar atención a la preocupación de Anuradha Kataria de que en la mayoría de los casos esta democracia trae inestabilidad, guerras civiles, genocidio, fundamentalismo, crimen y corrupción. Esperemos que tal no sea el caso con Egipto o las naciones vecinas donde el pueblo aspira por lo menos a un grado mayor de libertad.
The book questions democracy as the right political model for the developing world.
About the Book
There is a widening gap between democracy as a theory and its practice. If viewed not as an end in itself but a means to good governance as delivered to the citizens, how has it fared? While supposedly a solution to the problems of the developing world, in practice democracy has more often led to instability, civil wars, genocides, fundamentalism, crime and corruption. This “premature political opening up” has proven disastrous for many a nation like Nigeria, Iraq, Congo, Kenya, Pakistan, South Africa etc. Even in the few stable ones like India, democracy has failed to make a dent in its large scale poverty or crumbling infrastructure and has instead got caught in divisive election stunts. At the same time, some unitary states like China have surged far ahead of others and broken out of the “largely poor and deteriorating” mould.
Why? What are the reasons democracy does not work in the developing world? Why did it work differently in the developed world? Could it be made to work through improvements or is it the wrong model altogether?
Democracy in the West was brought in through a gradual process stretching over centuries. In the 18th century or about, the developed world of today was also predominated by poor rural classes and democracy was a mistrusted word. While constitutional republics were established, voting rights remained limited to a small minority of propertied, white males. Only in the 20th century did these societies transform into developed nations - with "middle class as the majority". Democracy with equal voting rights was ushered in only then. Everyone has an equal right to vote in a democracy but the outcome of the process depends upon the will of the majority - so who forms a majority in a country is a critical success factor for democracy to work. With all its limitations, democracy has still worked in the Western world. There is good reason to believe that it worked because it was ushered in at the right moment - when the relatively progressive, prosperous and educated middle class had already formed a majority. This kind of a class exists in the developing world too, but it remains in a minority. That may be core to the reason why democracy works differently in the developing world. There might still be cultural factors at play, why democracy works slightly better in one nation versus another but "who forms a majority" in a country when democracy is ushered in, is likely to affect its outcome the most.
Why “people power” turns subversive has many underlying reasons, a key one of which is that poverty is much harder to break out of. It takes nations decades, if not longer, of concerted efforts to pull people out of abject poverty in a perceptible manner. Yet elections have to be won every 4-5 years. Not having a credible story to relate to the electorate, increasingly democracy politics revolves around distribution of freebees or bribes as well as hijacking through emotional divisive issues. Further, in these opportunities-starved nations, a seat in the parliament is a quick and easy road to riches and power. Criminals and local warlords tend to join politics at the grassroots, weaving crime and militancy into the essential fabric of democracy at all levels. Parties rely more on freebies and divisive tactics to win elections since these have instant appeal, especially to the poor voters who view the alternate long term development programs with suspicion, assuming they will never see the benefit. This does not somehow magically add up to good governance. The decaying state of filth and misery is all too apparent upon a visit to any of these nations.
The book questions democracy as the right political model under all socio-economic contexts. The notion that democracy is going to transform the developing world holds little credence to anyone who has witnessed its true colors like the author has. Born and brought up in India, she has traveled extensively within her country as well as to several countries round the world and has also lived in China for the last three years. She marries her experiential perspective with years of rigorous research involving the study of the history, politics and economics of about 150 countries across the world, culminating in this book. The book delves into the complex world of subversive election winning strategies, secession movements, coalition governments, the meaning of freedom to people living amidst violence and poverty as well as a study of other sociopolitical systems. The quest for truth leads us to surprising answers in terms of progressive transient alternatives for the developing world as well as some pointers for streamlining democracy, the system per se.
Without any a priori theories, willing to go where the evidence leads, the author is able to point out the “Emperor’s new clothes” for what they truly are. It may be time to challenge our perfect theory as democracy may not be the solution to the problems of the developing world!
Who dare put democracy on trial? The right one to do so - the citizen from a developing country - India, the world's largest democracy.
Born and brought up in India, I also lived in China for about three years. The book is a bottom up perspective, from the viewpoint of a citizen – in terms of what alternate political models deliver in reality and not just what they should ‘in theory’. Although it is based on scientific research and not anecdotal personal experiences, I believe, there is a reality check that living in a country brings versus pure academic analysis.
Before starting on this book, much like the rest of the world, I too considered democracy as “a given” subscribing to the circular logic, that democracy is the right thing because it is the right thing. An argument with a student from Singapore about 12 years back opened my mind to at least questioning the ‘taken for granted’ assumptions behind democracy’s supposed superiority to all other models under all socio economic contexts. I started viewing the unfolding world events from this new perspective. And for the last 6 years researching and writing became my life. Prior to this I had worked in marketing and Marketing Research but all that took a beating as I immersed myself in studying political history of about 150 nations.
Researching and writing this book helped me change many of my beliefs and assumptions and I hope it helps change some for the readers too!
If democracy is not an end in itself but a means to good governance, how has it fared? Having been around for nearly 60 years in a varied number of developing nations should present sufficient evidence to put it through an empirical test. The digital definition of good governance as having or not having democracy is obsolete. Instead it should be measured based on governance as delivered to the ordinary citizens in their day to day life.
Analytical examples – Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Iraq, Iran, India, UK, The French Revolution
2. Democracy derails Development – How and why?
Till about two centuries back, society was sharply divided between a tiny wealthy class at the top and a vast mass of rural poor at the bottom. Industrialization changed that leading to advent of the middle class and a graded society. While market economy comes with its own ills, those issues seem more pertinent to the developed nations, who ought to address them. For the developing nations it is still a time tested proven option that can be the first leveler in reducing abject poverty. But development works like a ripple effect and the early gainers are so bitterly resented that the entire process is stalled. Industrialization gets portrayed as anti poor and hence violently opposed while agriculture remains largely non remunerative, thus creating a deadlock. Similar social tensions existed in the developed nations of today in the early phase of industrialization too but they had limited voting rights and hence could carry it through. Democracy comes in the way of development as it is going through its birth pangs.
3. Other Systems – Lessons yet Unlearnt
In our present biased thinking we have summarily dismissed all other systems as tyrannies in one form or the other. Looking at the history of a number of nations over the last century, this does not seem true in reality. Many of the insurgent or violent nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. have known far better peace and progress under other models. Such successes have been ignored or underplayed as they are inconvenient to our beliefs. While aristocracy and military rule are too autocratic, single party rule as well as oligarch republics with limited voting rights, have been quite effective in reality. Single party rule, when in place, has worked well in Spain, Colombia, Kenya and China providing stability, peace and development and deserves serious consideration as a transient alternative with a view to making it progressive. Oligarch republics have delivered both stability and openness in the Western world in the 19th century; it is thus a tried and tested option. A centralized rule designed along these lines could be a probable transient model for the developing countries.
4. Wooing the Voters – Rules of the Game
A basic problem with democracy is that voters do not make rational or truly informed choices and are instead often driven by emotional criteria. They also have a bias for instant gratification, keeping most democracies focused on the short term. Freebees, divide and rule, candidates’ X factor and smear campaigns have a large bearing on the voters’ decisions. Alternately, long term programs like infrastructure creation, investment in education etc are hard tasks where benefits come with a time lag. In all probability, the one who sows is unlikely to be the one who reaps - politicians shy away from such selfless agendas. But emptying exchequer and giving short term freebees or a divide and rule strategy has immediate returns with a surer shot at winning elections. The result is really a demagogy and not democracy. Can a voter always be portrayed as a hapless victim when in essence he does drive the direction of most decisions in a democracy?
5. Fundamentalism – Radical by Choice
“Democratization and modernization” are mistakenly assumed to be synonymous terms. But while free to choose, people have favored fundamentalist regimes and never failed to rise to the calls of religion, sect, ethnicity, race, language, caste etc. This has puzzled intellectuals who believe democracy is the instrument that would deliver these societies from their backwardness. But in reality the reverse happened. Democracy in its essence is rule by the will of the majority which need not necessarily mean progressive or benevolent rule. In most poor and pre reform societies which form the basic chunk of the developing world, a lot of retrograde attitudes and practices abound and the majorities are amenable to rabble rousing along divisive and fundamentalist lines. There are reform minded leaders as well as progressive sections in each of these societies. But they are in a minority and power, prematurely, has been placed in the hands of the conservative majority, thus making democracy a basic tool of promoting fundamentalism. Genocides, civil wars, communal riots, hate crimes, gender based oppression and rising vigilantism bear testimony to this. “People power” in the wrong socioeconomic proves detrimental to modernization and overall long term good of a society.
6. Secession - Right to Self Determination - or National Disintegration?
Contrary to popular doubts, democracy’s fear isn’t mob rule of the majority but splintering of a nation into smaller and smaller interest groups that cluster together to form a majority in a constituency. Sometimes these minority regions demand secession and that is encouraged as the right to self determination. This is because in terms of systems, we are standing still in time. When democracy was founded, monarchs ruled nations. Aristocracies had always been expansionist and hence the clause but democracy is inherently divisive and separatist. People like to live with their kind and are intolerant of other communities. Countless nations like Yugoslavia have been torn apart because of this misguided process of right to self determination through endless referenda asking regions if they want to stay together or separate. There are hardly any instances where people have desired staying together in a country rather than forming a small little country of their own with just their kind. But for some reason, right to self determination remains an integral part of UN agenda. Change in our basic assumptions is called for to encourage people to intermingle and find common ground than demand secessions.
7. Coalition Governments – Too Many Cooks
Barring few exceptions like the US, coalition governments are the norm in most democracies. While they seem to work well in small homogeneous nations like Denmark Switzerland etc., in most large and complex nations vote tends to get fragmented along regional or sectarian lines and coalition governance gets caught in endless deliberations, back room deals and horse trading of MPs. Such governments fall often, lead to too much deliberation, compromise and devolve into ‘donothingism’. This is the weakest form of government possible and has been the undoing of many a democracy like Italy, India, Iran, Romania etc. Yet in some nations like Germany, coalitions have been made to work through structural changes that need to be adopted in most pluralistic democracies.
8. Workaday Freedom – Differential Freedom Needs
Free media and freedom of expression has somehow come to mean the entirety of what it means to be free. However people living amidst violence, anarchy and destitution would hardly consider themselves free even if they have free elections and free media. Freedom needs to be understood from the citizen’s life perspective. At the very first level, people need physical freedom which can only be enabled by presence of good law and order. Amidst rampant crime, terror attacks and violence, no one can really feel free. To feel safe and free to move about daily in their lives is the first kind of freedom most human beings require and deserve. Many a centralized government has delivered far better on this dimension. Next is economic freedom as some amount of money is essential to a person’s ability to make choices and thus exercise some control over his life. It is freedom from worry and helplessness. Only upon fulfillment of these basal needs does a higher order need like freedom of expression become relevant. Democracy fulfills the higher order needs but has failed to deliver the basic freedom needs in the developing world.
9. The Verdict – Development or Democracy
Democracy is not an end in itself; it is one of the possible means to delivering good governance to citizens of a nation. Given the complexity of our world and the vastly different realities people are living on this very planet, we need more sophisticated political thinking that takes these complexities into account rather than one objective and one solution — both apparently democracy — fits all. It just seems bringing in democracy and establishing it is hard work, real hard work but one that does not yield much returns to the nations or its peoples. Might not it be better to yield to easier options that enjoy higher returns? While it is a worthy end goal, in poor rural and closeted societies that form the bulk of the developing world, democracy is a failure and alternate transient models are a crying need of the hour. Yet what else may work is not as well understood. The essential process suggested is evolutionary change and tailor made solutions. It is crucial to take stock of a nation’s present power dynamic before planning a change. That is the starting point for progressively taking it to more open systems without compromising stability and order. Recommendations on individual nations follow the principle of centralized politics and decentralized economics. But democracy remains an ideal long term goal.
10. The Decree – What is Good Governance?
The digital definition of good governance as either having or not having a democracy is misleading. Some democratic governments have delivered poor governance whereas some non-democratic ones have delivered good governance to their citizens. Even among the developed world democracies, the nations vary considerably on how well governed they are. What needs to be recognized is the “delivered to citizens” part. Elections are just a means of forming the government which needs to be assessed not just on what processes it is following but what is the net outcome for the citizens in their day to day lives. The presence of mechanistic democracy but absence of good governance is evident in people’s widespread disillusionment with their respective governments and leaders. If we were to define governance in terms of end deliverables, they would translate into some basic criteria like minimal population below poverty line, literacy, presence of good law and order in a society as well as some higher order ones like care for environment, harmonious foreign policy etc. Governments should derive their legitimacy not on the basis of how they were formed but how well governed are they in reality. Our prime allegiance should be to ends and not means. If we start measuring nations on these end deliverables, to our surprise, we may start getting them.
Respect the choices they make
Accept their nos
Steal not from them
their body work spirit or soul
Tarnish them not
Nor blame no more
Cherishing is a long worn dream
Let them breathe
Help them sing the songs
they don't even remember anymore!
As you set out for Ithaca
hope the voyage is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops
angry Poseidon - be not afraid
you'll never find them in your way
so long as your thoughts are high
and a rare excitement
still stirs your body and spirit.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
wild Poseidon - you won't encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them in front of you.
Hope the voyage is a long one.
May there be many a summer morning when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you come in to harbors unseen
may you stop at Phoenician traders
and buy fine things
mother of pearl, coral, amber and ebony,
sensuous perfumes of every kind
as many as you can
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
and gather knowledge from the scholars.
Keep Ithaca always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you are destined for
But hurry not the journey at all
better it last for years
so you are old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaca to give you riches.
For Ithaca gave you the marvelous journey
without her you would not have set out
She has nothing more to give you now.
And if you find Ithaca poor, Ithaca won't have fooled you
Wise as you have become, so full of experience,
you would have understood by then what these Ithacas mean....
