Democracy is the enemy of civilisation. Before political hackles rise in protest, let me add that the war of words between rival politicians that we have been suffering of late and the explosions into vulgarity that have become part of the political discourse are, in fact, manifestations of democracy in action. A Mamata Banerjee threatening to “bamboo” opponents or a Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti dismissing millions of Indians as “illegitimate” is the authentic vox populi, the voice of the people.
Some might say that democracy is by definition vulgar. Literally so. The word derives from the Greek demokratía which combines dêmos, “people”, and kratia, “power” or “rule”. The word “vulgar” comes from the Latin vulgaris derived from vulgus or “common people”. The two were strongly identified in the minds of the Greeks and the Latins. The Trinamul Youth Congress vice-president, Biswajit Roy, who was photographed recently grabbing a West Bengal Power Development Corporation engineer by the collar because he was annoyed by power cuts, could be said to be living up to the early Graeco-Latin concept of democracy.
Why then, one might ask, does British democracy not descend to the level of vituperation that is becoming common in India? The answer lies in education. Education progressed simultaneously with political rights in the country that has been called the most democratic of aristocracies and the most aristocratic of democracies. Of course, there are aberrations. The rise of the insular British National Party may mean more racial tension, but on the whole Britain’s 100 per cent literacy, high employment and general prosperity allow politicians to disagree without being disagreeable. That’s why the worst that could once be said of a verbal outburst was that it was “unparliamentary”. In India today, unparliamentary might be a compliment.
That is because political rights have marched ahead of social and economic empowerment. There were educational and property qualifications for the vote under British rule. But Indian nationalist leaders regarded them as discriminatory, and universal adult suffrage became synonymous with independence. This was in contrast with Switzerland where women did not enjoy the right to vote or stand for Parliament until February 7, 1971. But it would be stupid to imagine that the women of Switzerland, with one of the world’s highest living standards, in any way lagged behind their Indian sisters who enjoyed the franchise.
Narendra Modi implicitly admitted the drawback that is inherent in democracy when he pleaded with Rajya Sabha members to make allowance for Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti’s “background”. Presumably he was referring to her Nishad fishing caste to which the dacoit queen, Phoolan Devi, also belonged. Perhaps he had in mind the poverty in which she was brought up and her low level of education. These disadvantages cripple millions of other Indians as well. The question is: should the underprivileged be raised to the political level of the best or should the best sink to the level of the least? Now, it appears that the quality of our democracy is determined by society’s lowest common denominator.
Even if we accept the claim of 75 per cent literacy, India has above 260 million illiterates. Going by National Sample Survey figures, Other Backward Castes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes together account for 70 per cent of the population, or more than 700 million people. They are all regarded as deserving special privileges in education, employment and welfare benefits.
Yet, when it comes to politics, these men and women who are backward in every respect and need a constant helping hand are treated as being as well equipped to make a wise choice as the most able and accomplished lawyers, doctors, teachers and other highly qualified professionals. Not just that. The myth has grown that the lower you go in the social scale, the greater the instinctive acumen with which votes are cast.
This bit of make-believe received a powerful boost in 1977 when the Congress and Indira Gandhi were ejected from office. But what was thought to be a measured and reasoned indictment of the abridgement of democracy during the Emergency was only a natural reaction against the coercive birth control measures enforced in Delhi and the Hindi heartland.
Universal adult suffrage is a fine ideal. The founding fathers of our republic may have believed in it as they did in Fabian socialism. But it also served their political careers by ensuring that the multitude of people supported the recognisable authors of independence. That is what kept the Congress Party in power for an unbroken 20 years.
The downside was the corruption and other abuses that have reduced the electoral process to a farce. To cite Bal Thackeray, “In India people don’t cast their vote, they vote their caste.” Often, very little intelligent assessment goes into choosing the winning party. Politics is the one profession that demands no training because it’s all a question of permanent loyalty, present persuasion and future expectation. Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti’s only qualification for a ministerial berth lies in her caste and in the fact that she is sponsored by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad which the Prime Minister is suspected of trying to neutralise.
Such considerations have no bearing on democracy. On the contrary, illiterate and uninformed voters with little stake in social stability or growth ensure that the democratic process is permanently hostage to money and muscle power and other forms of manipulation. It is too late to retreat on universal adult suffrage. But a more determined nationwide effort to spread meaningful primary and secondary education and to create jobs is called for. That alone might ensure that people who have nothing else to sell don’t sell their votes to the highest bidder.
The writer is a senior journalist, columnist and author
