The Hindu Business Line : Treating sick democracies

If the ills of democracy are the result of unsatisfactory standards set by a society in question itself, then the cure does not lie in `more democracy' but in improving the standards. It may, however, be argued that `more democracy' can improve these standards.

IN THE course of a lecture in New Delhi the other day, Nobel Laureate Prof Amartya Sen is reported to have said that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. In other words, the more politically and socially inclusive a state is, the higher its democratic content. Put a bit differently, the larger the number of `choices' before the citizens of a state, the fuller is its democratic content.

Clearly, the proposition is based on the thesis that the larger the number of choices before the people, the greater the chances of the negatives being cancelled out by the positives. If this were not so, the freer play of choice would not result in a more acceptable democratic solution to social and political problems. It may be argued that the assumption that `democracy' is always good for a nation may not always be tenable. That is, it may be possible for the fairest of elections to lead to the choice of a leader who does not believe in democracy in the way `liberal purists' do, the choice coming after the candidate, during the election campaign, having sincerely and honestly laid before the electorate all his policy cards.

Then what is democracy all about? At one level, it can mean freedom of thought, choice and action and a healthy respect for the right of others to have the same freedoms.

But the central point is whether allowing the freest play to such choices and rights and duties will always result in a social and political outcome which will pass the `democratic' test in the conventional sense of the term? If it does not, then, as Prof Sen prescribes, there should be even `more democracy'. But is there any guarantee that the exercise will lead to a `better' democracy? May be, the process of ascertaining the choice of the people can be improved (that is, the `more democracy' part). But the outcome of such an improved process may, again, not pass the test for democracy set by, as we said earlier, liberal purists.

In simple terms, freedom of choice and a greater inclusiveness of society may not always lead to the wisest and most efficient of outcomes, conventionally speaking. Seen differently, the level of democratic performance of a society will be solely dependent on the standards of democracy set by that society itself.

In other words, if the ills of democracy are the result of unsatisfactory standards set by the society in question itself, then the cure for democracy does not lie in `more democracy' but in improving the standards concerned. It may be argued that the application of `more democracy' (a favourite term of dictators, one would imagine) would improve these standards.

But such things do not happen automatically unless the democratic process itself has led to truly wise men being placed in the right decision-making and implementing positions in society. But if this were the case, then the question of poor standards would not have arisen in the first place.

It does sound scary, but sometimes one is tempted to agree with the proposition that a benign and benevolent dictatorship is at times necessary in the life of a society to stage an important course-correction, the emphasis during the `interregnum' being on raising the literacy and educational standards of the people. The silver-lining of such an approach lies in the fact that such a policy would lead to an improvement in social and political standards all-round, which could then become the foundation of a `democratic' set-up where Prof Sen's panacea of more democracy to tackle the ills of democracy would be more effective.

Logical, yes, but in human terms quite unrealistic because even a benevolent dictator will be loathe to relinquish the State power he has once enjoyed smoothly and unobtrusively. All of which suggests that the functioning of a democracy is much more complex than can be imagined by the human mind.

Indeed, there are some present-day democracies where a dictatorship of corrupt politicians is firmly ensconced in the saddle — with, of course, honourable individual exceptions, as is always the case in such situations. The tragedy is that `more democracy' in such circumstances will only serve to strengthen the stranglehold of that dictatorship, sharpening further the `ills of democracy' instead of tackling them effectively.

Ranabir Ray Choudhury