Culture of democracy

Courtesy in political dialogue and tolerance of policy dissent are a central requirement of democracy

In 2011, as part of a report produced by the World Bank, I was asked to give a brief statement on what I saw as the crucial element in a thriving Indian democracy. I reproduce one para of what I wrote then, and then ask whether this culture of democracy still prevails.

“A constitution and elections are only the beginning of a functioning democracy. A lot depends on the emergence of working practices that respect the right of the Opposition and that set standards for political behaviour that in time become traditions. Even constitutional provisions like those for an independent election commission to supervise the electoral process require unwritten working practices for independence to become effective. That has been the experience of India, where the respect for parliamentary norms shown by Pandit Nehru and early Congress leaders set a standard that matters, not least when it is under threat. Thus, the leader of the Opposition is treated with as much respect as the head of government and is entitled to public services that allow him to function effectively.”

I regret to say that now much of what I had said then no longer holds. The politics of the first decade of constitutional governance was shaped by Nehru’s deep respect for the importance of the parliament in governance and his relationship with the Opposition. What was as important was the respect by the executive, which had the power of appointment in those days, for the independence of the election commission and the judiciary, the need for which was greatly stressed in the constituent assembly and supported by Nehru and the ruling Congress party.

The tolerance of Opposition continued during the first six decades of independent India (except during the Emergency from 1975 to 1977). A clear example of this is the well-known case when Pandit Nehru wrote to the Indian mission in the US to introduce Atal Bihari Vajpayee to people who mattered as he had potential.  One saw this also in the intimate cordiality of the relationship between Narasimha Rao and Vajpayee, and also in Manmohan Singh’s handling of the Opposition.

This is absent now. The public political dialogue has deteriorated into invective and character assassination. Using words like dynastic, corrupt, and even anti-national to describe the Opposition or its leaders undermines the tolerance for dissent, which must be a central feature of democratic politics. It is reflected in the virulent language used to describe political opponents, and the growing use of investigative and police powers by those in control of the government. One sees this not just at the national but also at the state level.

The independence of the judiciary was threatened, particularly during the Emergency, but was recovered with a Supreme Court judgment in 1993, which set up the collegium system, whose modification by a new law was also prevented by the Supreme Court. The appointment of the election commissioners had become a ruling party privilege, and was modified by a recent Supreme Court judgment. But this is being changed by a proposed new law that would, in effect, restore the ruling party’s privilege, an orientation that is out of line with what the constituent assembly wanted.

The leadership of politics in India has changed substantially from what it was in the first decade of the constitution, when it was dominated by the economic and caste elites. Perhaps the most significant change is the growing importance of caste as the basis for voter allegiance to parties and even the constitution of some parties. Caste matters in India not just because of the prevalence of social discrimination, but also because of the close connection between caste and economic inequality. 

It is quite understandable that in a democracy with universal suffrage, sooner or later the leadership of the elites will be challenged by voters in the middle and lower end of the economy and society. This happened in the US when Andrew Jackson challenged the early independence elite, and in the UK when the Labour Party did something similar. In India, the challenge to the elite began when the other backward classes (OBCs) emerged as a political force in the mid-1960s. This will continue and may lead soon enough to a rising political power not just for the middle but also for the bottom end of the economic and social pyramid, as Dalits and tribal groups may no longer be satisfied with simply accepting handouts offered to them by the political leadership from the middle and higher ends of the pyramid. This could be defended as the democratisation of Hinduism.

What is more disturbing is the growing tension and even alienation between Hindus and people of other religion, particularly Muslims. This is not consistent with the tolerance of a variety of beliefs and practices inherent in Hinduism. It is also not good for the development of a democracy. Democracy is not dictatorship of the majority, particularly in a country like India, which is widely diverse in terms of religion, language, social norms and culture and where regional and household economic disparities are very wide. The party or party alliance that wins a majority of seats in a first-past-the-post election system may well not represent  a majority of the voters, a possibility that has been the case in most Central and State elections in India. Democracy requires respect for the rights and views of those who are not supporters of the winning parties.

For this to happen, we need a culture of democracy that promotes courtesy in the public treatment of Opposition politicians and tolerance of substantive dissent, particularly on policy issues. Courtesy can help to reduce political violence. Tolerance of dissent is even more important, as it may help to correct policy failures.  One example of this is the liberalisation of the Budget of 1991. The demolition of the licence-permit raj was precipitated by the payments crisis. It was followed by the liberalisation of trade and the radical transformation of the share market. These changes were also the product of a climate of opinion that had built up in the decade before, fed by influential official reports prepared by the early supporters of deregulation like L K Jha, M Narasimhan, Abid Hussain and Vadilal Dagli. Incidentally, those who blame the bureaucracy should note that the first three, who were civil servants, were more radical in their proposals than Dagli, who was the editor of a pro-business periodical!

Courtesy in political dialogue cannot be imposed by law. It has to be part of the prevailing culture of democracy. It can only come from greater respect for the tradition of civility between political opponents that had prevailed, particularly in the early years of independence. But tolerance of policy dissent can be protected under the constitutional provision for freedom of expression. An important dimension of this is measures to free the media from direct or indirect domination by ruling parties. Let us, therefore, hope that the discussion of 75 years of parliamentary rule, scheduled for the special session this week, will help in moving towards these ends.

desaind@icloud.com