A Forgotten War - the Democratic Ruined Republic of the Congo

Anuradha Kataria, International Affairs Journal

18 May 2012

Published by the Center for International Relations
As conflicts of the oil rich Middle East forever grab media attention, a far deadlier war, Congo civil war stays in the shadows. This conflict that started in about 1997 – 98 has claimed over 4 – 5 million lives and expended heinous brutalities on women and children. (As a comparison, the Syrian conflict has claimed about 7000 – 13000 lives thus far as per various estimates). For the scale and level of brutalities, DR Congo’s civil war is often claimed as the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II. Yet it neither finds as much media focus nor debates about its future – has the world perhaps given up on it? As is the case with other conflict torn African nations, a question is always asked of Congo as well – is the nation even capable of self rule? Amidst such prevailing cynicism on this nation’s future and capabilities, let us explore possible ways out of this war and what role can the international community play.

The war started in about 1997 when Laurent Desire Kabila led a rebellion to overthrow Mobutu Sese Seko’s over 30 years long authoritarian rule. This was done ostensibly in the name of establishing democracy though the elections were never held. No sooner had Mobutu fled the nation creating a sudden power vacuum at the top, than the civil war started with various rebel factions vying for control. Congo’s neighboring nations too, got embroiled in the conflict and the eastern border particularly bore the brunt of this war as it was already teeming with refugee camps which were a spillover from the earlier Rwandan genocide. Laurent Desire Kabila assumed control of the capital Kinshasa but was soon assassinated in 2001, post which his son Joseph Kabila ascended the throne. Young and inexperienced, Joseph Kabila was unable to control the war. While on paper he declared the war over in 2003, the International Rescue Committee estimated that the war casualties continued unabated at the rate of 45,000 a month.

It was then believed that democracy would help the nation resolve its problems and the country held its democratic elections in 2006 which Kabila won owing to his ethnic loyalties. However, the violence escalated post this and now also spread to the western Equateur region. The parliament in Kinshasa became a mere paper-pushing entity, passing several laws which had absolutely no enforcement in reality. The decentralized power at the grassroots was in the hands of various rebel factions that plundered the nation’s resources to further fund the war. The government troops themselves got involved in worst forms of brutalities. In Nov 2011 Congo held its second elections and now also suffered pre and post electoral violence which is yet to subside. Why is there no end to this civil war? No doubt lack of good leadership is at the heart of the problem but more than that, is there something amiss with our political thinking that may be adding to the problem?

Democracy is a bit of “work in progress” in most nations, more so in some (particularly the developing ones) than others. It is no doubt an evolved model and despite its imperfections, has achieved a lot in the Western developed world, in terms of individual freedom, human rights, women’s rights, transparent governance and rule of law etc. These are ideals worth striving for and some of the developing nations are “trying” and must continue to do so. But in war torn nations like Congo, democracy is not work in progress – it is “work stopped” as the nation continues its steep decline on all parameters of governance. At the grassroots power is usurped by warlords who constantly feed the conflict, using plunder, ethnic divisive games and violence to exploit the populace rather than emancipate them in any manner. Shattered, abused and exploited this is the not the state in which perhaps a society is ready to take on the mantle of democracy. It would likely never stabilize. This form of quasi-democracy where elections are won through division and violence is only legitimizing a regime that is delivering nothing to its people. Instead, should not a leader or party in power derive its legitimacy from their ability to bring down the violence and tame the war? Is democracy the right model for Congo, or for that matter most war torn and conflict ridden nations? Neighboring Rwanda did manage to contain violence following the 1994 genocide under a single party rule, mostly under Paul Kagame’s leadership. While Rwanda has received much criticism for its role in the Congo war as well as lack of genuine democracy and political freedom, it is a stable state which has many achievements to its credit including the highest number of women parliamentarians anywhere in the developing world. Is there a lesson for Congo therein? Can it achieve stability and end its civil war under a centralized power structure as opposed to a decentralized democracy it is now in the grips of?

The same question could also be asked of other ruined nations shattered by war and internal conflict like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Can democracy ever take root and be sustained amidst war and wide spread violence, or is it put to its most subversive use at the grassroots with power in the hands of warlords, rebels, militants, etc? Can the international community engage in a debate over our basic political assumptions about war-riddled states and specifically, do we need a political rethink on Congo to seek an end to its tragic war?

The Sins of the Indian Democracy

-Anuradha Kataria,  The International Affairs Forum  12 Mar 2012

(Published by The Center for International Relations)

As the poll fever catches up round the world with Presidential primaries in the US, Presidential elections in Russia, Parliamentary elections in Iran and the upcoming Presidential vote in France, media seems abuzz with excitement. However a closer look at election results often throws up uncomfortable questions as voters never fail to surprise political theorists with the kind of choices they make, often at odds with the modern liberal principles that democracy espouses in theory. This is all too apparent in India in the just concluded elections in its largest state, Uttar Pradesh (UP). Given the size of the state, UP elections are considered critical and often touted as the semi finals to the national elections. They represent all the colors and hues of democracy as it plays out in reality in India.

A star campaigner here was Rahul Gandhi, the crown prince of the Congress dynasty. However, his clean image and promise of transparent governance could not take the party far, as these are not really the factors that weigh heavily on the Indian voters’ minds. Another star whose charisma faded in these elections was the incumbent Chief Minister, Mayawati, a lowest caste dalit woman and a political outsider who swept the previous state elections. While in the news for her megalomaniacal excesses like erecting her own statues all over the state and also corruption, she still is emblematic of the dalit pride. Her rise to power represents all that is good about democracy, such that even the most marginalized and victimized of communities, that dalits unfortunately are in India, can find representation and political say. However dalits comprise only about 20% of the populace and she could not really muster electoral support from other caste segments even though she had managed to improve the law and order in the violence prone state.

The elections were swept this time by Mayawati’s arch rival Samajwadi party that ruled the state before her tenure and was notorious for “rule by crime” and yet the voters did not seem to consider that a mighty flaw. The “crime connection” is indeed an integral part of the Indian democracy. While the national parliament itself has about 29% elected members facing criminal charges as serious as even rapes, murder and robbery, in UP this percentage was even higher for the candidates contesting the 2012 elections at about 35 – 38%. It is not as if the candidates’ criminal antecedents are hidden from the voters; most candidates’ criminal records are widely publicized in the papers but it would seem the voters are indifferent to it while casting their votes. A good proportion of these alleged criminals make it to the assembly over candidates with far cleaner image and record. Why is that so? The answer lies in the factors that propel voters to choose a candidate.

The biggest factor today in the Indian elections is the “caste dynamic”. Parties differentiate themselves primarily along caste lines, aligning themselves with this or that caste segment or a cluster of many. They lure the vote blocs with promises of exclusive benefits like reservations in jobs and educational institutes. This cuts across the entire caste spectrum from lowest to middle to higher castes and a party’s ability to mobilize such sentiments and loyalties is core to its success in the elections. As is often said in India, you don’t cast your vote but vote your caste. In essence democracy has become an instrument of deepening and reinforcing caste divides rather than challenging the medieval caste system as such. The state also has a large proportion of Muslims and they too became an important vote bloc for some parties while mobilizing the Hindu majority became a means for some others. These divisions mainly along the caste but also religion and language lines are reflected in almost all elections throughout the country.

On the positive side, Electronic Voting machines are widely used and electoral violence, once common place and inevitable in all democratic elections has been curbed to a large extent. UP, a state otherwise notorious for violence particularly against lower caste segments as well as women, has seen the recent elections pass with hardly any major incident of violence as used to be the case in the past. This is a significant progress and march forward for democracy and is mainly on account of the pain staking electoral reforms that India has undertaken in the last two decades which truly empowered the office of the Election Commission. These initiatives are worth emulating by other developing world democracies as well, given that election rigging and violence is a serious challenge before them too.

Overall the Indian democracy is a mixed bag. While it has granted political rights and representation to a marginalized caste segment, caste fissures seem to have only deepened in the society. Instead of fostering any kind of awakening to get rid of the archaic and unfair caste system, democracy is fast becoming a tool of reinforcing the same. Almost all parties use this divide and rule formula to win elections making it a cardinal sin of the Indian democracy. The criminal infestation of the state and the national parliaments further undermines the “ideal” of a democracy, as it ought to have been. Given that the voters themselves chose candidates based on the caste or religious identity dynamic and are indifferent to the relative criminal background of candidates, it is not clear then how the Indian democracy would absolve itself of these sins and awaken (if ever) to pursuing the intended “democratic ideals” of an equal, progressive, unified and peaceful society.

Democracy on Trial, All Rise! - Book Editorial

                                 MWC news - Media with Conscience
Democracy on Trial: the book

| Print | E-mail

Saturday, 05 February 2011 10:31

By Ben Tanosborn

 Share Link:            

Comments and Reactions

America answers crucible of revolution with distrustful evolution

This morning, on this eleventh day of protests in Egypt, perhaps the eleventh hour for America to show how it handles change and turmoil in the developing world, I received an email from Anuradha Kataria, author of “Democracy on Trial, All Rise!”  It could not have been timelier, or more apropos, to what has been happening lately in the world of politics, extending from North Africa to the Middle East, touching many well entrenched autocratic regimes.

Ms. Kataria, who had used a citation in her book from an article I wrote in March 2010, “Iraq’s election results will confirm, but not bestow power,” appears to have her theory and analysis being put to the test once again.  Her book challenges democracy as being the right political model under all socio-economic contexts.  And that is something which I have observed for decades without the added analytical rigor of a social scientist.

The path to democracy, whether via revolution or evolution, is indeed quite different for a nation with a sizeable, educated middle class, than for a nation where the population is overwhelmingly rural, poor and conservative.  In the latter, according to Ms. Kataria, democracy leads to subversive use of “people power.” Here, of course, subversive could very well be considered a loaded word.

America has followed the British tradition, model if you wish, in dealing with turmoil and unrest beyond its borders, from the moment it attained nationhood: all past and present American governments, without exception, have always insisted, and often demanded, that governments anywhere in the world be amicable to the United States and, if need be, subservient to its interests.  Although the State Department has always maintained America’s unequivocal promotion of civil rights and freedom for others in the world, the bottom line has been to accept dictatorships, or any form of autocratic government, when deemed as necessary to meet American economic and military objectives.  That is an indisputable fact that holds true today!  A fact that is complemented by another fact: that, overwhelmingly, Americans are in total accord when it comes to matters of empire and self-serving interests, freedom or civil rights appearing to have a looser definition when applied to people living beyond this nation’s borders.

Latin America has always been the perfect example for a foreign policy based on self-serving interests dating back to the nineteenth century; the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine and the forceful incursion of the United States in economic, social and political matters that took place in the American hemisphere.  That arrogant Monroe Doctrine appears to have been replicated by Israel and her own declared “hemisphere” which apparently comprises the entire Middle East!

The biggest concern at the White House during this popular revolt in Egypt, one more prone to have economic rather than political roots, had less to do with freedom of the Egyptians to express their discontent, than with the degree of friendliness that a new regime might have for Israel.  From the outset, the US State Department made it clear to the world that the Muslim Brotherhood was an unacceptable element in any revolt, or in the possible sharing of future power in Egypt.  Never mind that the organization might be the voice of 20 percent or more of the Egyptian people, or that they have expressed themselves to the West in a friendly and co-existing tone!  But, just as the US showed its intransigence with Hamas after they won the Palestinian elections in January 2006, it shows its bullheadedness in denying the reality that the Muslim Brotherhood represents.  There is a direct line between Washington and Tel Aviv that supersedes and denies any other type of communication.  And that is, and will continue be, an insurmountable obstacle to world peace.

One thing we know for sure is that the situation in Egypt is causing global economic jitters, although the probability of the Suez Canal closing is almost zero.  An undertaking like that would be foolish for any type of government: autocratic, democratic or even one with strong fundamentalist roots.  Perhaps the biggest danger of all would come from fear itself and the possible stockpiling-hoarding of wheat and grains by some nations, such as Algeria and Saudi Arabia – or Egypt for that matter – that would greatly help metastasize the political strife.

While we may think of democracy as part of, if not the solution to, the problems of the developing world, we may heed Anuradha Kataria’s concern that it has more often than not led to instability, civil wars, genocides, fundamentalism, crime and corruption.  Let’s hope that such is not the case with Egypt or the other neighboring nations where people are aspiring to, at the very least, a greater degree of freedom.

© 2011 Ben Tanosborn

Myanmar and the Winds of Change

Myanmar and the Winds of Change - Anuradha Kataria 5 Jan 2012 published in International Affairs Forum (Published by the Center for International Relations)

(1)

Aung San Suu Kyi is a name bigger than the nation itself and often the reason Myanmar stays in the news. Her release from detention last year brought mixed cheers as the military regime has been known to reverse their stance and detain her right back as has happened several times before. The nation’s further tentative steps towards opening up were also viewed with suspicion. But one year down the line, there seems no rolling back as Myanmar continues to shore up international confidence with ongoing voluntary reforms. US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s recent visit seems emblematic of this growing confidence. So, are the winds of change for real this time?

Looking at its past, Burma (as it was then called) gained independence from the British colonial rule in 1948 and set out on a democratic path. The ensuing era was fraught with instability brought on by a series of political and ethnic insurrections as the nation is riven by 135 odd different ethnic communities. In 1962, there was a military coup and the junta regime came to power and has held on to it ever since. Being an authoritarian regime, Myanmar has faced harsh international sanctions, although it is not seen as such a villain in the region itself. Both India and China have maintained diplomatic as well as trade ties with it. But general political and economic isolation in an increasingly global world has hurt the nation and continued military dictatorship taken a toll on people’s spirit.

Perhaps realizing the inherent implausibility of its continued military rule, the regime started opening up starting with Suu Kyi’s release in Nov 2010. A civilian government was also instituted under Thein Sein who is widely considered as a moderate with a clean image. Several political prisoners have been released, dialogue initiated with separatist groups and media restrictions also relaxed, albeit only slightly. Aung San Suu Kyi is now allowed access to the international media as well as visitors and seems to be preparing to contest a parliamentary seat. This augurs wells for the nation as no doubt Suu Kyi is key to integrating Myanmar with the rest of the world. After decades of sacrifice and commitment, it is about time she be given her due political role in re crafting Myanmar’s future.

However, US urge for expediting reforms towards a full-fledged democracy may not be as pragmatic as it sounds on paper. If we look at a parallel here, in the early 1980s, Pakistan too went through a similar phase when the military rule was brought to a close and Benazir Bhutto, daughter of the slain leader, then an international favorite was seen as a new hope for the nation. Amidst huge popularity within the country and without, she was expected to usher in democracy and turn the country around. Democracy did come marching in full colors but the reality thereafter turned sour and things did not go as expected. This is often the fate of sudden political opening up and a turn to universal suffrage democracy in the developing world, Nepal being a recent victim of such an overhaul in the region. Factional power struggles and political opportunism take to the fore and rule of law as well as stability ironically suffer in a quest for the same.

Myanmar too has a potential for instability given the separatist movements that exist in its bordering regions as well as the drug mafia that continues to simmer despite some initiatives by the Junta. Instead of an abrupt and sudden break from the past, an evolutionary transition to democracy might be a far better option and seems to be the path Myanmar has thus far chosen for itself. Aung San Suu Kyi has a huge role to play in modernization and reintegration of Myanmar with the rest of the world. However instead of a shock therapy, which can endanger national stability, collaboration with the existing stakeholders and taking them along might be the best model for Myanmar. So long as the Junta backed leadership realizes this and continues moving forward with greater reforms, progressing even at the pace that they are, international bodies should perhaps play a more encouraging role. The much needed IMF and World Bank assistance as well as phased lifting of sanctions should be given a serious thought. They can always be rolled back should the nation backtrack on its path.

As of now the signals are positive that this time the change is for real and Myanmar is indeed set to take a break from its repressive past and step into the 21st century.

My Favorite Quotes

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 

Democracy on Trial, All Rise! - Book editorial in Spanish

"Diario Siglo XXI" in Spain:

 www.diariosigloxxi.com/texto-diario/mostrar/66714/respuesta-de-eeuu-al-crisol-de-revolucion-desconfiada-evolucin-

Respuesta de EEUU al crisol de revolución: desconfiada evolución

Ben Tanosborn 

Ben Tanosborn Domingo, 6 de febrero de 2011, 00:29

| Comentar

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. 

Other countries:

"Aporrea" in Venezuela: 

www.aporrea.org/internacionales/a117109.html and

Online Journal

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6888.shtml

MWC News, Canada

http://mwcnews.net/focus/editorial/8464-democracy-on-trial.html

Middle east Online

www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=44116 ;

News central Asia

www.newscentralasia.net/

Democracy on Trial, All Rise! - The Book

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!