Dialectic Democracy M C Raj The practice of governance seems to be as old as human society. Democratic form of governance has marked the history of many indigenous communities. Non-discursive praxis of democracy is very much alive in many forms of governance of indigenous communities in different parts of the world. Even in the progression of modern democracy discourses on culture developed as a scie scient ntif ific ic disc discip ipli line ne main mainly ly beca becaus use e indi indige geno nous us form forms s of dem democra ocrati tic c governance were able to withstand the challenges of industrialization and modernization without being affected by them. Indigenous people have been practicing democratic governance without making any deliberation about it, meaning without making it into an abstract discursive practice. Progression of post-modern democracies has a specific political trajectory that is most suited to the economic and social designs of ruling oligarchies in different parts of the world. Starting from the period of enlightenment and liberalism it has made rapid strides in replacing Feudalism and Monarchy. In its trajectory it has has re-i re-inv nven ente ted d the the whee wheell of expl exploi oita tati tion on and and oppr oppres essi sion on thro throug ugh h the the production of more acceptable and to some extent also mystifying discourses and paradigms.
Colonial Democracy ‘Power as resistance’ sounded very attractive in as much as resistance was directed against the praxis of governance in the monarchical and feudalistic phases of history. While discourses of resistance were loaded with attractive paradigms of dissolving the concentration of power in the hands of monarchs and feudal lords, that the ‘resistant powers’ would replace such forms of governance with more sophisticated accumulation of wealth of nations and produc productio tion n of weapon weapons s of mass mass destru destructi ction on was comple completely tely camou camoufla flaged ged under under the discou discourse rses s of democr democracy acy.. Monarc Monarchy hy and Feudal Feudalism ism becam became e intolerable ‘nuisance’ in the designs of liberal sharing of the wealth of nations that that were were accum accumula ulated ted throug through h the many many ‘disco ‘discover veries ies’’ and subseq subsequen uentt coloni colonizat zation ion of nation nations. s. Democ Democracy racy became became a very very attrac attractiv tive e packa package ge of governance for those who wanted to have liberal share of wealth accumulated thro throug ugh h colo coloni nizi zing ng prax praxis is in othe otherr part parts s of the the worl world. d. Thus Thus in its its very very emergence modern democracy had this irresistible spin of head and tail. Head for the colonizing democracies and tail for the colonized nations! Governance as practi practised sed by Great Great Britai Britain n and Europe European an nation nations s during during the differ different ent phases of this emergence of democracy had this stark contradiction. It was liberalism mixed with a heavy doze of protectionism in the ‘colonizer’ country. The same same propon proponent ents s of moder modern n democ democracy racy in their their countr countries ies practi practiced ced obsole obsolete te forms forms of oppres oppressiv sive e and exploi exploitat tative ive govern governanc ance e in ‘colon ‘colonize ized’ d’ countr countries ies.. Clubbi Clubbing ng these these two dimens dimension ions s togeth together er we arrive arrive at what what is proposed as ‘colonial democracy’.
1
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
One cannot escape from the embedding of a design of dominance within the pole pole of ‘pow ‘power er as resi resist stan ance ce’’ in poli politi tica call scie scienc nce. e. This This embe embedd ddin ing g of dominance within the ambience of resistance is what marked the emergence of governance through attractive discourses of democracy as well as the resi resist stan ance ce to ‘col ‘colon oniz izat atio ion’ n’ in diff differ eren entt nati nation ons s of mode modern rn world world.. It is a significant lesson in history that resistance to colonization did not develop in those countries that clamoured for liberalism and democracy engulfed as they were with ‘enlightenment’. It is only after unrestricted accumulation of power and wealth that beautiful theories of democracy developed in the colonizing nations. India’s independence struggle under the leadership of MK Gandhi offers an example of very attractive resistance leading to the establishment of dominant form of governance. The discourse was not so much how a people should be governed as who should govern India. The end result of power as resistance, spearheaded by Gandhi was the answer to who should govern India after the British left. Power as dominance that is one of the poles in political science was was not not repl replac aced ed as late laterr hist history ory show showed ed in Indi India. a. The The same same colo coloni nial al dem democra ocracy cy bec became ame the the model odel of gove overnan rnance ce in Ind India with ith some paraphernalic changes in the Instruments and Mechanisms of governance. The ruling class of India believes in power as dominance as much as its Briti British sh coun counte terp rpar art. t. Thou Though gh Gand Gandhi hi rais raised ed some some issu issues es of the the ‘how ‘how’’ of governance the cumulative essence of Indian democracy still is a colonial legacy of which the Indian I ndian intelligentsia is very proud and happy. happy.
Deliberative Democracy Amartya Sen has brought out a volume on the argumentative Indian. The spac space e that that is avai availa lab ble in Ind India for for arg argume umentat ntatio ion n is haile ailed. d. Suc Such argum argument entati ation on seems seems to be perche perched d more more in romant romantic ic branch branches es than than in scientifically tested grounds. The rest of the world has started discoursing on ‘deliberative democracy’. We are beginning to witness here and there formal expo exposi sitio tion n of delib deliber erat ativ ive e demo democr crac acy y as the the most most appr approp opria riate te form form of democracy in the post-modern period. For one who listens to deliberative democr democrati atic c discou discourse rses s it sounds sounds very very enter enterpri prisin sing. g. Many Many who have have read read argumentative Indian, coming as it is from Amartya Sen develop an elated sense of intellectualism. Political space created in both these discourses is prob proble lema matic tic for for the the prog progre ress ssio ion n of demo democr crac acy y to the the end end user users s of the the Instruments and Mechanisms of governance. Argumentation and deliberation are quite significant in the development of mature democracy, provided one does not ignore the huge void that both can crea create te in the the prax praxis is of demo democr crac acy y. Parti Particu cula larr sect sectio ions ns of soci society ety in a democracy, especially those who have the reins of power to govern do not grudge a space for argumentation and deliberation as long as it does not
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
procedural procedural democraci democracies es to periphera peripherall praxis. praxis. Availabil Availability ity of argumentat argumentative ive space and deliberativ deliberative e democracy democracy caters to their palate unendingly unendingly.. Their indulgence is what suits the designs of the ruling elite in any country. country. Foucault argues that more than solutions to problems it is problematizing that matters most. People should be able to problemat problematize ize instead of offering offering solutions. solutions. In fact, according to him problematizing is itself a solution to problems. In the development of discursive practices over the past many centuries starting from the period of enlightenment, deliberative democracy is only next logical phase. It is an elite form of democracy and will naturally hesitate to take a stand in favour of all sections of people for whom democracy is meant.
Dialectic Democracy While the ruling oligarchies have provided much space for argumentation and deliberation they have been constantly threatened by what I term as ‘Dialectic Democracy’. Dialec Dialectic tic democr democracy acy is one that that evolve evolves s Instru Instrumen ments ts and Mechan Mechanism isms s of gove govern rnan ance ce in cong congru ruen ence ce with with the the syn synthes thesis is that that is arri arrive ved d at as a consequence of the movement of thesis and anti-thesis. It is a progression in hist history ory.. Its prer prereq equi uisi site te is adeq adequa uate te spac space e for for diff differ erin ing g worl worldv dview iews s and and practices that may or may not find a place in argumentation and deliberation. While deliberative democracy preconditions itself by the existence of cognitive know knowle ledg dge e dial dialec ecti tic c demo democr crac acy y will will be effe effect ctiv ive e even even with with empi empiri rica call know knowle ledg dge e with withou outt nece necess ssar aril ily y prec preclu ludi ding ng cogn cognit itio ion. n. In as much much as deliberative deliberative democracy democracy requires requires sophistic sophistication ation in terms terms of knowledge knowledge and communica communicative tive language, language, dialectic dialectic democracy democracy satisfies itself with organic organic evolut evolution ion of instru instrume ments nts and mechan mechanism isms s of govern governanc ance e based based on their their comm commun unic icat ative ive comp compet eten ence ce.. Form Forms s of demo democr cracy acy that that exis exists ts in many many indigenous communities do not posses the sophistication of argumentation and deliberation. However, they can claim to be the original progenitors of a thesis of democracy that developed without any necessity to be an antithesis of anything else. To be in the trajectory of the dialectic movement of thesis and antithesis its praxis is good enough. The very fact that indigenous people in different parts of the world practice different forms of democracy poses a dialectic challenge to the discourses, argumentation and deliberation that are developed in the progression of modern democracy. Dialectic democracy does not confine itself to mere argumentation. Unlike deliberative democracy the validity of dialectic democracy is derived from its procedural democracy. In fact the substance of many indigenous democracy is drawn drawn more more from from its praxis praxis and less from from its delibe deliberat ration ion.. Proced Procedura urall democracy poses the stiffest challenge to the ruling oligarchies as it is not confined to the elites but is spread out into the practicing communities of people. Lacking the ability to proceed with the dialectics of the indigenous
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
Zealand has recognized the need for progress in democracy through dialectic move moveme ment nt and and has has give given n spac space e to the the Maor Maorii peop people le to have have sepa separa rate te electorate. Norway, Sweden and Finland have gone many steps further and have set up a separate Parliament to the indigenous Sami people. Gandhi simply subverted the progression of dialectics through his notorious fast unto death against the thesis of Ambedkar that Dalit people should have separate electorate. He used the iron fist of his moral authority to obliterate the thesis of Ambe Ambedk dkar ar and and made made him him acce accept pt Gand Gandhi hi’s ’s own own anti anti-t -the hesi sis, s, whic which h is reservation. All over the world ruling oligarchie oligarchies s have a limited limited level of tolerance towards towards dialectic movement and its consequent synthesis in society. This is because their agenda of progress is set dominantly and they perceive dialectic not as progress but as a blockade to their designs of progress. The blockade to dialectic movement in dominant societies is wrought generally in two ways. The first way that the domina dominant nt society society takes recourse recourse to, includ including ing the discursive elites, is to turn a deaf ear to counter thesis or to original thesis that existed much before power was vested in its hands. Both the intelligentsia and the governing forces feign calculated ignorance of either the existence or the emergence of anti-thesis either through a praxis or through a discourse. If this does not work the ruling elite takes recourse to use of brute power, often blindly oppressive armed forces, to obliterate any possible anti-thesis. The intell intellect ectual ual elites elites in such such cases cases take take recour recourse se to ascrip ascriptiv tive e practi practices ces to invalidate the legitimacy of anti-thesis. The ruling elite finds support in such ascriptions and makes use of them as the legitimization for use of blind force. The government of India has further embellished the Gandhian model by subjugating the Tribal people of the North Eastern States through the Armed Forces Forces Specia Speciall Powers Powers Act (AFSP (AFSPA) A) and by makin making g unrest unrestric ricted ted space space available to the Indian Army for the exercise of brute power. Irom Sharmila of Manipur has developed a dialectics with the Indian democracy not through argumentation and deliberation but through her very bold act of fasting unto death for the withdrawal of AFSPA. That India has not yet ratified ILO 106 is a clear indication of the arrogance of ‘power as dominance’ not to enter into any dialectic movement within the ambience of democracy. That India has not yet removed untouchability from the face of India despite the loud profession of the Constitution, is another glaring evidence of its callous subjugation of the Dalit thesis towards a meaningful democracy. democracy. It is one of the biggest biggest advant advantage ages s in dialec dialectic tic democr democracy acy that one one can can develop either a thesis or an anti-thesis without necessarily developing a discourse, argumentation or deliberation. It sounds very romantic to think of India having liberal space for argumentation and deliberative democracy. But with the type of illiteracy prevalent within its borders Indian ruling coterie can very easily absolve itself of its subtle subversion of democracy by subscribing to the argume argumenta ntativ tive e Indian Indian and and delibe deliberat rative ive democr democracy acy.. One must must also also acknowledge here that deliberative democracy has not yet come out with its
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
musc muscle le powe powerr, money money power power,, rest restri rict ctin ing g spac space e for for crim crimin inal als s to cont contes estt electi elections ons etc. etc. They They are highly highly argume argumenta ntative tive and and delibe deliberat rative ive within within the existing democratic framework. Their deliberations are heavily concentrated on procedural democracy. This is a much-needed dimension within the praxis of given given democr democracy acy.. Howeve Howeverr, ultima ultimately tely when when such such argum argument entatio ation n and deliberatio deliberation n succeed succeed within within the given framework framework of procedura procedurall democracy democracy they would have only strengthened the quality of existing democracy which has a history of serving the needs of the ruling elite, in other words serving the needs of those who believe in ‘power as dominance’. Most other countries in the the worl world d have have alre alread ady y refo reform rmed ed thei theirr elec electo tora rall syst system ems s towa toward rds s a Proportionate Representation in their democratic praxis. It looks as if those countries like the United States, United Kingdom and India who have proven dominant streak of governance are still very reluctant to reform their electoral systems that will give representation to historically suppressed people. These three countries serve as the benchmark of racial slavery, colonial exploitation and caste oppression.
CERI There are other schools such as the Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India (CERI) (CERI) whose whose effort efforts s are focuse focused d on dialec dialectic tic democr democracy acy and congru congruent ent procedural democracy. While not discounting the significance of deliberative democracy they move a step further to a dialectic movement in democratic theory theory and and practi practice. ce. By adding adding a third third pole pole to politic political al theory theory,, ‘power ‘power as participation’ they have also challenged the validity of praxis of democracy in India through the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system. Their thesis is that Indian democracy should take recourse to Proportionate Electoral System and and deve develo lop p its its cong congru ruen entt proc proced edur ures es.. This This thes thesis is is a veri verita tabl ble e and and demo democr crat atic ic alte altern rnat ative ive to drac dracon onia ian n meas measur ures es such such as AFSP AFSPA. A. Indi Indian an government will do well to acknowledge the need for space in governance for dialectic democracy by replacing its FPTP electoral system with Proportionate Elec Electo tora rall Syst System em.. A synt synthe hesi sis s that that is arriv arrived ed at thro throug ugh h such such dial dialec ecti tic c democr democracy acy will will be much much more more lastin lasting g and peacef peaceful ul than than suppre suppressi ssing ng the legitimate democratic aspirations of the indigenous people of the North East, the Dalits all over India and the religious minorities.