Democracy is a word that’s vague and has multiple meanings. It is often used as an excuse for not doing anything. The use of the word should raise suspicion about the intentions of the speaker.
Most people when explaining democracy start with an even worse definition of the word: “government of the people, by the people, for the people“. This was uttered by an American politician in 1863. Like most political speeches, it is designed to sound profound but leaves enough room to play soccer within that definition, let alone misinterpret it according to convenience.
The clearest word in that sentence is “government”. Democracy is seen there as a system on how to operate an extremely large group of people (known as a “country” or a “nation”). But the 4 remaining words — “of”, “by”, “for”, and “the people” — give us very little information about what democracy is.
The words of the people can either mean it is a system of governing the people, which would make it redundant considering that there’s already government before it which means the same, or it could mean it is a system which is composed of people, which would make it mean the same as by the people.
When it comes to by the people, we have to think about the history of when this was being used. It was used at a time when some people were considered royal, or of a different class, and these people were operating the government. In that context by refers to redistribution of power.
For the people can also be understood in the same context as having a direction and purpose which is in the benefit of the people as opposed to only benefiting the royal class.
By far the most disturbing word there is the people. It was 57 years later in 1920 that women could vote in national elections in the United States of America. So when Abraham Lincoln said “of the people, by the people, and for the people” it didn’t include women. And that’s the only definition of democracy that most of us can recite.
To be fair, today’s NCERT textbook seems to be really trying to make us think past that useless definition. Quoting Ribiang and Lyngdoh Madam from it:
Ribiang: But why do we need to work on a definition? The other day you quoted Abraham Lincoln to us: “Democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people”. We in Meghalaya always ruled ourselves. That is accepted by everyone. Why do we need to change that?
Lyngdoh Madam: I am not saying we need to change it. I too find this definition very beautiful. But we don’t know if this is the best way of defining unless we think about it ourselves. We must not accept something just because it is famous, just because everyone accepts it.
Such a fascinating call for critical thinking in Class IX social science textbook! The rest of the chapter is fantastic too and it talks about free & fair elections and constitutional rights. It ends by saying that there is an expanded notion of what’s democracy when people say sentences like: “We are a very democratic family. Whenever a decision has to be taken, we all sit down and arrive at a consensus. My opinion matters as much as my father’s.“
When I say democracy is a useless word, I’m mostly concerned about this expanded scope of the word which is applied not at nation-state levels, but at smaller levels like organizations and groups. In discussing that, we will look at the meaning of the word in its form-of-government sense too.
What people mean by democracy
A large number of people mean “majority rule” when they say democracy. This is where you have fascists destroying institutions and putting political opponents behind bars. In smaller groups, this attitude translates to “let us put this to vote”. If a “democratic” organization makes decisions based on what wins a majority vote, it is a majoritarian organization.
Some others explicitly call this out as majoritarianism and consider a democracy as one where the rights of the minority are upheld. There is greater emphasis on a previously agreed set of rights and protection of these rights. In smaller groups this operates as a “consensus-based decision making”. Every individual will have the right to veto a decision and there will be an attempt to form a consensus.
We can already see how complicated the latter would be. Regardless of how much emphasis there is on consensus, it is easy for a dedicated individual to prevent consensus formation. Consensus formation requires a shared desire to reach consensus. And this becomes disproportionately more difficult in larger groups.
There’s another reason why consensus is difficult.
“Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic.”
~Dr B. R. Ambedkar
If democracy is a decision making process, and it is a consensus based decision making process and not majoritarianism, then there’s a value system that’s required to be shared by everyone such that there is consensus. That value system is called constitutional morality.
Constitutional morality is composed of values like liberty, equality, and fraternity. Non-majoritarian democracy can exist only when these values exist.
Can non-majoritarian democracies exist?
At the scale of a nation state, it is impossible to have a non-majoritarian democracy. Let’s take India even before Narendra Modi. The Aadhaar project, for example, came up in that India. It was vocally vetoed by several thousands of people. Even the Supreme Court eventually declared it unconstitutional. Yet, Aadhaar was made a reality by a government that wasn’t even called fascist.
It is with that realization that the constitution of India goes to great detail about fundamental rights and how to protect them. While the decision making shall always be majoritarian, the fundamental rights and institutions like judiciary leave a loophole through which those left behind can negotiate.
And as long as the majority has not gone fascist, these loopholes allow enough space for those others to live peacefully. And vice versa, the moment majority turns fascist, these other things crumple and the majoritarianism shows its true colors.
In other words, a non-majoritarian democracy is a make-believe game played by a majoritarian democracy when there’s no crisis. The moment there’s a crisis, those who hold power will come out and sort things out in ways they want.
At the scale of nation-states this happens through raw physical power, through police, army, gun, and machines. People are physically put in jail, or murdered. Some of this power is now operational through virtual spaces and can manifest as blocking website, taking down channel, and so on. But even these blocks are enforced through physical network infrastructure that’s operated by human beings.
It is also interesting to note what happens when there is a military coup in a “democratic” nation. The constitution, the election, the institutions, the people, they’re all the same. But the guy with the gun is now ruling the country. How’s that possible?
It is possible, because at its core, there’s nothing called a democratic government. There is raw physical power, and in a complicated series of social role-plays, this is often held by a power center which also happens to be elected by a majority. If the social role-plays are gone, then the whole thing collapses into its true form.
Surely these don’t apply to small groups, right?
One could be mistaken that smaller groups — like an online discussion group, or an NGO — do not have such central power. After all, how many times have we heard “this is a democratic space” being used in these contexts?
Look at how decisions are made and enforced in these spaces, and you’ll see the same pattern as in nation-states. There is a complicated social role-play. But eventually the decision making power is vested with whoever legally controls the NGO, or whoever is the administrator of the group. If you can kick someone out, you hold the ultimate power in that space.
So, all of the consensus process and “democratic decision-making” in these spaces are actually power delegated by the ultimate authority.
For a thought-exercise, let us imagine that there is an online group, and through some technical glitch nobody can get kicked out of it. Isn’t that the ideal democratic group?
As long as there are no decisions to make, this works out. And in a large number of online groups which are merely spaces for people to spend time talking to each other, there are no decisions to be made. And therefore this works out.
But if there is the tiniest decision to be made, it no longer will work. Say someone says “let us change the group name”. Suddenly there’s the need for a decision making process. And till that is established first, the name will likely remain the same.
Democracy is biased towards the status quo
Akshay
Let us do say the group is really interested in this problem. There are several possibilities.
If everyone in the group likes a new name, the problem vanishes. The name gets changed. This is perfect consensus. But this rarely happens. This is easier to happen in very small groups. This is easier when the group is largely comprised of people thinking similarly or like each other.
If a large number of people like a new name, but a few like the old name, the problem takes on a new dimension.
- Those who are in the minority could face social pressure and agree to go with the new name — consensus through social pressure — and the name gets changed.
- The group might decide that till everyone agrees on the name, it won’t be changed, and the name will remain the same.
- The group might just decide that the majority vote will decide the new name — majoritarian democracy.
Did you notice how I sneaked in “group might decide”. How will the group decide how to decide this problem? How will the group know whether to go with a majoritarian vote or a consensus process?
This is where no group is void of power hierarchies.
Even in a group where everyone is an administrator, those who joined first or those who are more senior in real world could hold more power. If, say, this is Beast Games and a hundred people were randomly picked into a group at once, there would still be differences in physical attributes that give some people more “power”. Someone might look more intimidating, someone might speak more persuasively. These “natural” leaders tend to gain power.
The other possibility is that there are two or more leaders who emerge and they have different ideas as to what should happen. In this situation, if the stakes are high, the group will split into factions.
But often what happens is that there is no high stakes, there’s not much to gain by splitting the group, and things will just continue based on the energy of the most vocal person/group. Those who disagree might either live with the choice, or just leave the group.
Over time this will lead to the group degrading in what it seeks to achieve by retaining the energy and enthusiasm of a very small “core” active group. And they become the power center, and the group now has a power hierarchy.
Let’s do a different thought experiment. What happens if one member of the group just unilaterally decides to change the name? Social norms prevent this from happening usually, but there can still be people who violate this. The following could happen:
- The action can get reverted by someone else
- The group just discusses it for a while and moves on (with the name remaining changed)
What if the name change is indeed reverted, and the deviant person changes the name again?
These might seem esoteric situations, but a lot of “norms” are violated consistently in various groups. And whether these are problematized depends on the people in the group. And whether these are addressed depends on the power hierarchies in the group.
And remember we are operating in the ridiculous constraints of our thought experiment. In most groups, there’s real power that’s obvious and straightforward to see. And all decisions ultimately are enforced through these power structures. And the decision making process is consequently determined by these power structures.
| Just think about the work of Women in Cinema Collective in Kerala film industry. Most woman were facing harassment from men. This could be considered “violation of social norm”. And after a lot of hard work and deep politics things perhaps changed a tiny bit. WCC problematized the issue. But who can “address” it? Problematizing helps and is only the first step. But enforcement of justice is left to those who wield real power, which in case of Malayalam film industry is those who hold the money (or those who hold the guns). |
Democratic groups are groups playing social role-play under benevolence of power
As in the nation-state, a group which describes itself as “democratic” is just a group which plays the social game of democracy under the supervision of benevolent power structures. The rules of the game are often ad-hoc, made by and imposed by the power structures.
We might consider that human beings are social animals, and such social constructs are how we always operate. But in this essay what I’m trying to argue is that this fact — that a democracy is just a game of entertaining participants under the supervision of a kind dictator — is often not realized by the participants themselves. And that has to do with the vagueness and uselessness of the word democracy.
Nobody is allowed to question what a democracy means. It falls like a command that stops all further discussions.
- Does it mean that everyone will agree with everyone else?
- If there are disagreements, how will those be resolved?
- Are there some basic rules everyone is expected to follow?
- If so, are these rules themselves amenable to change?
What use is this analysis?
You might see groups that don’t have answers to these questions that still exist. And then you might show that as examples of why these questions are irrelevant.
And I will agree with you when it comes to certain groups.
There are groups whose purpose is to be a space where a large number of people will put their attention. The idea is to just be a notice board where things can move. A ‘digital town square’ or a ‘digital public square’, an example of which is the now defunct Twitter.
For such a space decision making is unnecessary. Anyone can post anything. Free speech is the only right to protect.
But if any group claims to be anything more, like:
- Pro-people, pro-poor
- Action group
- Movement group
- For a fairer world
- Safe space
- Caring space
If anything more than “a public square” is in the group’s description, then the use of the word “democracy” is a red flag.
If you are pro-people or pro-poor, you have to do things and change things for people. You have to necessarily be an action group. And an action group needs to have clear decision making structures.
If you are a safe space, you have to ensure that there’s psychological safety for everyone involved. And that requires very strict ground rules, quickly enforced, about how one can speak and what one can say.
When people do not have the energy or commitment to make a space pro-people, or make it a caring safe space, they hide behind words like democracy. And this leads to the group becoming just a public square.
A public square is not bad in itself. But being a good public square requires its own commitment. Again, if you lack energy for that commitment, just hide behind the word “democracy”.
Democracy in that sense is a very useful word. It helps people avoid spending energy. When you’re confused about what to do with a group, just call it a democracy and be done with it.