Democracy on a weighbridge

 Shantanu Thakur

(thakur.santanu@gmail.com)

Democracy wasn’t born overnight. It has evolved through years of
 trials and tribulations. Every country or nation in the world is not yet a democracy. India hasn’t crossed a century as one. For years after India attained independence, England and several other countries were sceptical about whether democracy in India could last for long. Although this apprehension didn’t turn out to be true, it cannot at the same time be taken for granted that threats and challenges to democracy will never rise. This doesn’t apply to us alone; democracies anywhere are prone to occasional threats to their existence. Threats to democracy have been seen earlier in our country. Such anti-democratic deviations and tendencies cannot be exclusively attributed to any one particular political party, either. Power corrupts, and too much of it might tempt any dispensation to turn autocratic and dictatorial.

The declaration of emergency during the 1970s was seen all over as a threat to democracy. A state of emergency declared in the interest of the sovereignity of a country is understandable, but any such draconian measure made in the interest of a political party or individual cannot but be seen as an encroachment on democratic values. That the all-powerful Prime Minister of the time herself decided to rescind the state of emergency and go back to the people with democratic elections is something that deserves to be seen with keener insight. Several explanations have been aired as the reason behind the repeal; not the least is the inherent trust and faith of the Indian population in the principles of democracy. The then Prime Minister could sense that the people at large resented this extreme arrangement and, sensing large-scale public disapproval, declared general elections.

Democratic values in India have existed since ancient times. In the days of kingship, a democratic temper was not wholly absent in governance. Although not institutionalised democracies, various kingdoms in Rajasthan and Punjab, as well as the six hundred years of Ahom rule in Assam, respected and heeded the opinion of the prajas in several matters. In the ideal Raam-Rajya, the king had not hesitated even to take the controversial decision to banish his own wife, all in the interest of popular sentiment. Kings stay aware and responsible when their subjects remain vocal; similarly, democracies can stay safe when people remain vigilant and alert. If democracy is for the people, of the people, and by the people, then the responsibility of its preservation and upkeep must also lie with the people.

But democracies the world over are passing through bad times. The celebrated democracy in the US is itself facing challenges—not from external threats but from within. In a country where the Declaration of Independence document is seen as sacrosanct, an ex-president who is again a candidate for the presidency is himself issuing threats to the country’s system if he is not returned. Memories of the events of what happened at Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, are still fresh in the consciousness. The probable fallout of such a state of affairs in other democracies around the world should not be difficult to visualise. Musings over what turn democracy in India may take in the future should, therefore, not be seen as unwarranted apprehensions but as genuine concern for hard-earned democratic values.

India currently has six national political parties, fifty-eight state parties, and around another two thousand five hundred ninety-seven assorted political entities duly recognised or otherwise by the ECI. Though some see this as a burden on the system, most consider it a healthy diversity in a vast country. Reducing these numbers might add to administrative and logistical convenience, as well as perhaps streamlining democratic processes, but they are desirable in a land of many cultures. The democratic temper in India has been such that many committed souls contest the elections as independent candidates even when aware of a sure defeat. This speaks volumes about respect for democracy. An Ambassador to India years earlier had called ours a “functioning anarchy.” That need not bother us much; democracy in our country has evolved and progressed with its own strengths and weaknesses; we don’t need advice from foreign shores to steer us.

Pondering on democracy could now be called a seasonal leaning, what with simultaneous election fever. How much majority does a government at the centre need for effective governance of the country? The Indian Constitution has left no room for doubt on this. Governments have been formed with a simple majority (often with support from others), and as long as internal political bickering and rivalry over power politics did not come in as obstacles, such governments functioned fairly well. An absolute majority might help in pushing through controversial programmes, but an absolute majority carries an inherent, arrogant virus to turn into a brute majority that might try to override otherwise mandatory parliamentary processes and approvals. A healthy opposition and the checks and balances that it can raise are, therefore, not to be ignored. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that at some point in time, voters decide to return candidates of one all-time favourite party to all the seats in Parliament, will that necessarily be desirable, or for that matter, healthy for emocracy? Democracy is not confined to numbers alone. A democratic spirit, its underlying principles and values are the bedrocks of the system. Here, the winner doesn’t take it all. Respect for tolerance, decent civil dissent, and concern for minority opinion, however feeble, is what makes a democracy desirable and healthy. The great Indian dance of democracy has begun again; one fervently hopes the outcome reassures hope and irons out latent discrepancies to the extent possible. Perhaps there cannot be a thing called a perfect democracy in a country as vast and diverse as ours.