The Hindu Business Line : Where is India's democracy dividend?

"These people who can see right through you never quite do you justice, because they never give you credit for the effort you're making to be better than you actually are, which is difficult and well meant and deserving of some little notice."

— Marilynne Robinson in Gilead (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004)

IT IS so disappointing that India was mentioned exactly once by the US President, Mr George W. Bush, in his State of the Union address to the US Congress on February 2, 2005. Mr Bush chose to include India in the league of its `old rivals', and along with Russia and China. All that he and his speechwriters could venture to say was that a common danger — terrorism — is erasing old rivalries. The US, therefore, is working with Russia and China and India (sic) in ways `we' (sic) have never before, to achieve peace and prosperity.

India was mentioned once. But `democracy' was conveniently kept out of what is arguably the most important State of the Union address a second-term US President has to deliver. There was no approving comment on India's unflinching commitment to democracy. Mr Bush did not take the necessary effort to commend India for enshrining the freedom of its people to choose their local governments and central government. Quite unsurprisingly, India's general elections in the first half of 2004 did not merit an inclusion.

Pedagogue without examples

Mr Bush spoke his mind on the importance of the rule of law, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance. He was right to say that no nation owns these aspirations, and that no nation is exempt from them. He then asserted that America would always stand firm for these `non-negotiable demands of human dignity'.

A billion people in India may be justified in evaluating Mr Bush as a fervent and committed pedagogue who has no examples to offer. They may be further justified in seeing him as a stick wielder who finds no value in acknowledging the good intentions and good deeds of small people. Mr Bush could have showcased India's efforts aimed at standing firm for the same non-negotiable demands of human dignity. But he did not.

Rivalling for quality

India's per capita income is quite certainly small but its per capita democracy is perhaps the highest in the world. It may be higher than `America's'. Almost all local representatives who move on to elected office in the US do so with a little help from redrawing constituencies. In a normal democracy such as India, voters choose their representatives. In the US, it has been the other way around for a long time. Candidates from the Democratic and the Republican Parties choose their safe constituencies by redistricting.

`Re-districting' reinforces a self-perpetuating and, perhaps, dubious quality in American elections. Incumbents always find it easier to raise money than challengers. House incumbents typically outspend challengers by an awesome five to one. They also make their seats safer by redrawing boundaries so that their committed voters stay with them. This discourages challengers even more. Together, these two depress voter turnout. The US' astonishingly high re-election successes and its astoundingly low voter turnouts are related.

By contrast, India has astonishingly low re-election successes. What is more, its voter turnouts are very high by US standards. India has invented its own format of practicable democracy, and has without any regret and compromise stayed the course over the last five decades. And, through these five decades of governance by free elections, smug incumbents have been shown the door. Eager and responsive challengers have been welcomed and given a fair chance. Mr Bush may have seen India to be the US' most successful rival in the context of the quality of democracy.

Same league?

The US sees itself as the world's gold standard in democracy and free and fair elections. But the world's cumulative `democracy quotient' over the last five decades would be lower by about 68 per cent if India had not stuck with the principles of human dignity and its format of electoral democracy. And over the last five decades, there has never been one kind, appreciative word from any US President — Dwight Eisenhower through Mr Bush Jr via Richard Nixon. The world would have been a horrible place to live in if India had not been a democracy.

But the erstwhile Soviet Union, Russia now, and China since 1972 have been nudged and cajoled to be kind to their peoples. And the US has called many other nations `its friends' when their own rulers never found the need to regard their citizens or subjects as `friends'. It is most depressing that India should be included in the same league to which Russia and China belong.

There is more. India has had and continues to have freer markets, freer trade and freer societies domestically than Russia and China. Moreover, it is difficult to separate the freedom of markets, trade and societies from that of the people to elect their own leaders and governments without being intimidated. Why? The rules of the market, trade and society are written and implemented by leaders and governments. India elects its leaders and governments, and elections are not overseen by any army — Indian or foreign.

(The author is a financial analyst. Feedback may be sent to indiagrow@yahoo.com)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Round and round

Telecom: Beyond the FDI cap hike

World economy: From uni-polar to tri-polar

China's growth enigma

Where is India's democracy dividend?

GDP growth rate

EPF interest rate