Repairing the torn fabric of democracy
HALF of the democratically elected governments around the world are in decline, undermined by problems ranging from restrictions on freedom of expression to distrust in the legitimacy of elections, according to The Global State of Democracy Report 2022 — Forging Social Contracts in a Time of Discontent, published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Institutions for democratic governance need reform. Means must be found for forging social contracts in a time of discontent, the report says.
The problem with majoritarian democracy is that it is not designed to find solutions to complex problems with many points of view.
A common definition of democracy is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. A government is formed of the people by vertical processes of upward representation of the people in the government and downward authority over them. A common distinction made between a ‘democratic’ and an ‘undemocratic’ government is in the method of selection of those with authority. In monarchies, power is vested in rulers by historical conventions; in dictatorships it is seized by force or stealth; in a democracy the people elect their rulers.
All governments, whether monarchies, dictatorships or democratically elected ones, are expected to deliver benefits to the people. The benefits people want are security, public infrastructure and welfare. People remember certain periods in their histories — when kings ruled well, provided peace, built public facilities, and delivered welfare — as ‘golden ages’ even when their government was not an elected one.
A government of and for the people is not adequate for a democracy. Governance must be by the people too. Citizens must participate in the decisions that impact their lives.
The fabric of democratic societies is woven by vertical and horizontal threads. The warp —the vertical threads — are the relationships between rulers and the ruled. The horizontal threads — the weft — are relationships among people. Democracies require an architecture of institutions. Some institutions provide the vertical threads. Others provide the lateral binders that give strength and stability to the democratic fabric. While spreading the idea of democracy that the US made its mission, too much attention was given to vertical institutions for people to elect their leaders, and too little to lateral institutions for creating harmony among diverse people.
Universal franchise, elections and political parties fighting each other to win elections are institutions that enable a society to determine who is in the majority and has the right to govern. The problem with majoritarian democracy is that it is not designed to find solutions to complex problems with many points of view. A government with a majority, especially a large one, can become as authoritarian as a dictatorial one. It can deny minorities their rights to be heard while framing laws. It can justify the exclusion of the minority because it was fairly elected by a majority, with the view: The people have spoken once in the election; that should be enough… Now, they must leave it to the government in power.
However, by excluding the views of the many that did not vote for it — and quite often these may be a numerical majority in first-past-the-post elections — a government reduces its own effectiveness. Those dissatisfied with the government’s decisions go to courts, wherever courts are independent. However, courts, even in democratic countries, are not set up to find policy solutions to complex problems and must interpret the written laws.
Dismayed by institutions corrupted by politics and with courts unable (or unwilling) to intervene, citizens of many democratic countries seem willing to accept authoritarian rulers as better for their security and welfare. Others, also dismayed by the politics of representative democracy, but with more liberal values, advocate a direct form of democracy in which citizens themselves participate in all decisions. They want a government by the people, not just an elected government of the people.
When problems are complex, with several interacting forces and many contending stakeholders, good governance requires effective methods for people’s participation. Referendums of the entire electorate give an illusion of good democracy — the notion that the people have been consulted. Because the masses must be swayed, politicians on both sides of the referendum run populist campaigns appealing to the basest of instincts; whereas when the issue is complex, voters should be educated about what they are voting for. And then, when a small majority determines how all must go (the 52-48 vote for Brexit in the UK, for instance), referendums become yet another example of the problem with majoritarian democracy rather than a good solution.
The design of the structures of a democracy — Constitutions, devolved institutions and electoral processes — is important for democracy to function smoothly. However, the nature of the dialogue within these institutions, and also in the public space among citizens, produces democracy’s quality. The liberal democratic order is under grave threat because we are not listening to people outside our physically as well as conceptually gated communities. Social media, now dehumanised by artificial intelligence, has torn democracy’s fabric apart. It is disconnecting human beings from themselves and from each other.
A free public sphere can raise issues. Social media has made it even freer. However, it cannot resolve complex issues because people are not listening to each other. The formal institutions of democracy have become overburdened because issues raised in the public sphere are not pre-digested by intermediate processes before they are debated in elected assemblies. Healthy democracies need processes for deliberations that lie between the open public sphere of civil society and media on one side, and the formal, constitutionally established decision-making institutions, like parliaments and courts, on the other.
Reforming the Constitution will not make India more democratic. Methods must be found to engage citizens, thoughtfully, with issues that matter to them. Processes for dialogue amongst citizens in which they listen to people whom they consider “not like themselves”, to understand others’ perspectives, are imperative to save democracy in India, and around the world, in the 21st century.
