The future of democracy
There are very few systems of governance in modern times which enjoy the sanctity of overwhelming public support. The common man in most countries where he / she is allowed to express an opinion
complains about the system in which they live and hopes to imbibe something
better from the grass that appears greener on the other side of the fence.
Having considered that reality of public opinion, we aren't likely to find any system
of governance whose basic structure meets with overwhelming public support.
However, there has always been one holy cow in the modern world, whose worth
and value has always been above question. A system considered so good and noble for
its own sake that to even question its worthiness is considered blasphemous
in the modern world. That system is called democracy.
The idea that people should only be governed by consent is as fundamentally sanctified
a concept in the modern world as the removal of poverty or gender equality.
However, in this write-up, we will undertake an analysis, where I will present
some circumstantial evidence to suggest that this hallowed concept has largely eroded and
that it stands either abandoned or hollowed out by extremely influential
and consequential parts of the world.
I won't offer any immediate conclusions at the end of this article.
I would only urge the reader to ponder the implications of the larger picture I'm trying to paint
if all the circumstantial pieces of evidence are put together.
​
The rise of China.
Till India recently became the fastest growing economy in the world, China has dominated the
global economic story like a leviathan in the last 4 decades.
China is the second largest economy in the world and is poised to become the largest
in the near future. It commands a military might which is strong enough to keep NATO
on its toes in the Far East and also to keep smaller countries which feel the
threat of China on tenterhooks.
It is a permanent member of the UN security council and regularly votes to either oppose
or abstain a stance which the West thinks is in the interest of global security and
stability.
Almost everything that is bought in the consumer markets of the Western capitalist economies
is manufactured in China and consequently nearly every country in the West is running
a trade deficit with China.
It swallowed Tibet in the 50s and has only strengthened its efforts to legitimize its claim on that territory.
China uses North Korea as a proxy to irritate the West and to ensure that the US military
posture in Asia always remains focused on the more immediate threat of North Korea.
China supports a rogue country like Pakistan in an attempt to keep India contained
within South Asia and also to implement its String of Pearls project to strategically
encircle India and negotiate a way to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea.
Whether one agrees with the direction China has taken as a country or not, it would
require someone to be in complete denial mode to suggest that China is not one of the
most influential countries in the world and has a central role in the world today
in setting the global agenda on international affairs.
Yet China is a country which is not democratic.
Not only has China shown an unapologetic attitude towards its lack of democracy, it
has gone out of its way to prove to the world that it doesn't believe that
aspiring to be a democracy is even a goal which China should hold.
Far from facing any real consequences because of this national stance, China continues
to enjoy permanent membership of the UN Security Council, a steady stream of
manufacturing investment from the West and an indulgent attitude from the other
members of the UN Security Council when it fails to take a stance on removing
global tyrants like Saddam Hussain and Kim Jong Un.
It would seem that at least in the case of China, most of the world seems perfectly
happy with the fact that its neither a democracy nor is even attempting to become one.
If democracy was such a hallowed concept, then why have business and economic interests
trumped democratic principles ?
Why has no country decided to take a stance that it will prevent companies in its
country from sending investment dollars to China unless some evidence is furnished
that China is serious about making a transition to democracy ?
The Western World which seems to advocate the values of democracy the most, seems
to have negotiated away the sacredness of that concept for more earthy economic gains.
And if that is so, then it cant be true that the West truly believes that democracy
is such a superior and noble concept, because if it did, it would never have compromised
on it for economic benefit.
​
Moving onto the next example.
Saudi Arabia's existence in the modern world.
Most of the Arab World is struggling to come to terms with democracy as a system they can
implement in their societies but Saudi Arabia's case is particularly stark.
It is a country where the most basic human rights and freedoms have no meaning.
The country allows itself to behave in a manner which suggests that it has no ability
to learn how to become a modern nation with 21st century values.
If one were to conduct an experiment on running a medieval country in the modern world
with a mindset which belongs to the dark ages and technology which belongs to the modern age,
then Saudi Arabia would be a perfect test case.
Imagining a democracy to emerge in Saudi Arabia would be like hoping for a cure for cancer.
You couldn't construct a more undemocratic society on the planet if you wanted to.
And yet, this neanderthal existence of Saudi Arabia hasn't led to its expulsion from the
comity of nations. Saudi Arabia faces no economic sanctions for its medieval existence.
To the contrary, it has been and continues to be one of the leading supplier of crude oil
in the world. No country in the world has put the sacredness of democracy over the more expedient
option of cheap crude oil.
At a certain point of time, when analyzing these countries I was tempted to think that
maybe Western democracies hold places like Saudi Arabia and China to a lower standard of behaviour.
And therefore don't hold them to as high a standard as they would apply to themselves.
That would be shockingly stupid and shallow if it were true.
But at least it would offer an explanation for this apparent relaxation of the values
of democracy for economic gain.
​
Unfortunately, the next example blows that consolation right out of the water.
The power grab by the EU.
This time we are heading right into the heart of the Western World.
The establishment of the EU and its metamorphosis from an economic union designed to
create a large and competitive market to an emerging political union is the
largest undemocratic project Europe has seen since the end of WW2.
To deny that the EU has political ambitions is to just deny reality.
It is entirely clear to anyone watching that the EU is far more than an economic
union. The massive bureaucracy which has been setup by the EU in Brussels is clearly
designed for influencing the rules which govern the member countries of the EU.
This project has the consent of no country on which it is being applied.
And if a member country wants to exit this project and pursue its own path into the
future, it is dragged back into the fold by bureaucratic wrangling.
Its almost as if the Brexit vote never took place. The EU just seems intent on buying
time and focused on making the cost of a quick exit by Britain prohibitively expensive.
There is already talk in the UK about needing a second referendum, which is nothing less
than a slap in the face of the people who voted to leave the first time around.
This is happening in the country where the Magna Carta was framed.
The rebellion in mainland Europe against the imposition of governing rules by the
EU on member countries is growing. But the very fact that this undemocratic project
is even being attempted in the first place proves the expendable way in which democracy
as a concept is viewed in modern Europe, at least by the EU bureaucrats.
The Brexit vote was one of the largest democratic exercises in modern Europe.
And the shocking way in which a hand-wringing Theresa May government is trying to negotiate
the import of that vote away is a testament to the way in which the "will of the people"
is viewed today in the land where the Magna Carta was once framed.
​
Am I painting an unduly dire picture ?
Perhaps yes, if we were to only take a snapshot of the present and analyze it.
But if we zoom out and look at the bigger picture, we would have to agree that none
of the countries or regions we have analyzed here are inconsequential dots on the global map.
To make this analysis more objective and less emotional, let's take two large consequential countries
in the world, where democracy is still alive , thriving and even celebrated.
The United States and India are two of that kind.
But let's look below the covers in both countries.
When we do that, the overall trend which would be immediately visible that both societies are becoming
less liberal and less tolerant of dissension. While that move may be debatable on merit it certainly
shows that common people seem to have run out of patience for a loud, critical, noisy, rancour-filled
democracy which might be getting in the way of national interest.
In a recent Pew survey, it was revealed that a significant portion of India's youth favour military rule
as an option for themselves going into the future.
Trump's rise in the US is a sign that people are opting for a more authoritarian way when dealing
with problems facing their country.
While neither country has abandoned democracy nor has even hinted at giving up on the system, its still
the case that both countries seem more comfortable now with a more authoritarian way of governing themselves than in the past.
A significant cause of this shift in public opinion has to do with the existence of sections of people
in both countries who live almost completely outside the norms of democratic societies but for
entirely condemn-able reasons are still allowed to be part of the body politic by liberal politicians.
This trend has led to vast sections of the tax paying middle classes of both countries to lose faith
in the liberal traditions which have been the backbone of the system they follow.
Whenever they've had the chance to confront their governing authorities with the question as to why
legal tax paying law abiding citizens who are following most of the constitutional principles and laws which
derive from the constitution should be considered equal to those who are neither law abiding
nor show any faith in the constitution from which those laws are derived, they have never been furnished with
a logical or convincing answer.
Consequently, they have adopted a more authoritarian stance politically.
I would fully accept that there is no actual threat to democracies in both India or the US.
But people in both countries can see that there are double standards being applied everywhere in the world
when it comes to upholding democratic values.
And that those double standards are being applied even within their own societies.
This is a global trend.
The liberal nature of democracy is certainly waning away in countries which are still functionally democratic.
What does the future hold for democracy as a concept ?
As promised earlier in this piece, I won't offer any easy encapsulating conclusions here.
All I would venture to say here is that the world has changed and evolved from the time that democracy
was introduced into the public consciousness as a system of governance a few centuries ago.
And in an evolving world, democracy as a concept may also have to evolve
in order to keep its relevance and its power as an alluring and noble idea.
We can see attempts in the public space to redefine and re-interpret terms like "secularism" and "socialism".
Radical attempts to redefine (and perhaps re-clarify) these concepts seems to be the need of the hour.
Perhaps democracy also needs a re-definition. Something akin to a system upgrade in a computer.
When the operating system of a computer becomes outdated and riddled with bugs and viruses, its usually
recommended that the operating system be upgraded to a new level.
Something similar might be in order for democracy as a system of governance.