Democracies have their weaknesses. But over the years, they have proved to be far more resilient than authoritarian regimes. So all those who value their rights and freedoms must abide by constitutional duties
There is now a transition underway in the global debate on the efficacy of democracies. What was already ongoing for a couple of decades — as China grew in affluence, military capabilities and global ambitions — was termed the Washington Consensus vs the Beijing Consensus. What is happening now is an audacious shifting of gears by China that has implications for all.
Checks and balances are crucial to a healthy democracy, but far too often that principle is being misrepresented as giving a veto to those who have been vanquished in elections (Shutterstock)
By the turn of the century, China had long left behind Maoist economics and demonstrated rapid growth for a generation. Its growing affluence was welcomed by a world where the economies of most nations had become dependent on global supply chains. Its concomitant militarisation, abrasiveness, and growing global presence unnerved many, but at that time reservations were only ever expressed behind closed doors.
After the global recession triggered by the 2008 crash of Lehman Brothers, China was openly boasting that its system of governance was superior. Now it is raising the stakes even further, pointing to the West’s chaotic handling of the coronavirus pandemic as proof of democratic dysfunction. It is, of course, no coincidence that during this time China has also stepped up military aggression, most notably against India and Taiwan.
A glance at the United States (US) indicates why China has decided to up the ante now. America’s polity is now the most severely polarised since 1861-65, when it went through a debilitating civil war to prevent being split in two. Having spent nearly a decade in the US as a student and in the early years of my career, it has been puzzling for me to see its recent domestic political polarisation. So much so, that there is again talk among a section about seceding. And as a citizen of a country that was partitioned in living memory, that is worth analysing and understanding.
Indeed, these two largest democracies in human history have many parallels. Just like India has been for millennia a beacon for travellers, scholars, and seekers of asylum, fame and fortune, so, too, has America been in the modern world. And just as both nations have overcome many traditional schisms, both also have lofty ideals enshrined in their constitutions, as well as open societies in support of those.
India was brutally vivisected as a result of deep intransigence among some in the final 15 years of a centuries-long struggle for Independence. The US was neither partitioned in its war of independence, nor in its brutal civil war in the mid-19th century. In fact, democracy allowed it to gradually overcome many of its societal inequities. Yet, more than half a century after the civil rights movement in that nation, there are columns being written and talk show discussions happening in the US whether it would be better off as two countries.
Of course, such an outcome is highly unlikely. Not least because Americans, with their history of a civil war to prevent partition, have not given much traction to those media debates. And also unlikely because robust democracies have inherent abilities to course correct.
That is a strength that autocracies do not have. Though they can brutally crush separatism, they do not have the mechanisms of peacefully letting off steam or resolving vexatious issues. Consequently, even seemingly successful autocracies have crumbled, sometimes with stunning rapidity.
But democracies too have their weaknesses. For one, they are slower at changing long-set policies, because of the need to build consensus. What was called policy paralysis in India is known as legislative gridlock in the US. But a far more dangerous potential weakness is the breakdown of institutional processes.
The irony is that the charge of institutional breakdown is usually laid at the doorstep of the government, often with blatantly partisan bias, and rarely against an intransigent opposition, even if the evidence for that is staring everyone in the face. Thus, when some decisions of the highest court in the land support the government’s stand, there is invariably an outcry by certain usual suspects, ignoring the opposite which happens far more often.
Likewise, the now-withdrawn farm laws had been debated and passed by Parliament, after half a century of a nationwide discourse that saw near unanimous support. Yet, when many in the Opposition suddenly turned around and opposed them, there were few in the media willing to call out their blatant hypocrisy. And similarly, when Members of Parliament (MPs) are suspended for gross misbehaviour in Parliament, the very commentators who have for years demanded tough action, blithely turn around and accuse the government of authoritarianism. Never mind that there are several all-party resolutions for the presiding officer to do exactly this.
Checks and balances are crucial to healthy democracy, but far too often that principle is being misrepresented as giving a veto to those who have been vanquished at the polls. It does not. And that intransigence of those who have failed to gain the public’s support, yet are able to prevent the popular will from being implemented, is just as much a threat to democracy.
Over centuries, democracies have proven to be resilient, and better, while authoritarian regimes have come and gone. Now they face the latest, and greatest, challenge. It behoves all of us who take democratic rights and freedoms for granted to also abide by our constitutional duties and obligations.
Baijayant “Jay” Panda is national vice-president, BJP
E-Paper
