Chapters Synopsis

1.     Democracy amidst Poverty - the Forbidden Fruit

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 The digital definition of good governance as having or not having democracy is obsolete.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 19^th 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.