In its modern context, democracy may be of the people, for the people, but definitely not by the people in its genuine sense
Democracy, like so many other modern Western concepts, especially in art, architecture and culture, is essentially an inheritance bequeathed by ancient or classical Greece. The Greeks were unrivalled in the art of definition, classification and categorisation of abstract themes (Aristotle has described and compared over a hundred Constitutions of his day), which quality has rightly been called the prerequisite or precursor of civilisation. This political system was ideally suited for the small city states of the Hellenic world such as Athens in which the actual voting population was said to range from 10,000 to 50,000 only, and in which all eligible adult citizens (except for women and the person of slaves) could be physically present to vote on an issue at one place outside the city. Because of various flaws such as party interests being given preference over the national interests, corruption, and infighting and intrigues among various factions, Plato even then called it ‘mob rule’ and preferred the detached and rational rule of his philosopher king, which found an approximate historical example in only one instance, in the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
World democracy today faces a host of challenges, not least of which is that populations since that period of antiquity have mushroomed into millions and now into billions. In most instances, this has resulted in uneven benefits to the citizens and asymmetric economic growth creating frustration and resentment within the body-politic. Many in long established democracies still remain on the fringes of society: they are the marginalised, the uprooted and the disinherited.
The ongoing Indian national election is a case in point: in the world’s largest democracy, over 800 million voters will decide the next leadership over a five week period in an exercise spread across the length and breadth of the vast country. But, despite uninterrupted democracy, except for the brief Indira Gandhi emergency of the 1970s, Indian democracy has not been able to provide even basic needs or equal opportunities of growth to the vast majority of its citizens. The urban-rural divide alone represents a wide unbridgeable chasm and cost the BJP the last election because its slogan of ‘Shining India’ only appealed to the urban elite. The rigid caste system also remains firmly entrenched in many regions
Compare to this, a controlled one-party model, the Chinese, has brought about much broader prosperity to its people in the same time span, and a robust minimum ten percent growth every year, regular as clockwork, despite all the pundits’ gloomy forecasts. And this in a country about whom Karl Marx had remarked that ’opium was the religion of the people’.
The major drawback of modern-day democracy lies in its economic aspect, the capitalist system, with its supply and demand mantra, its ‘markets’ and stock exchanges and the concentration of the world’s wealth in the hands of a fraction of individuals.
The major drawback of modern-day democracy lies in its economic aspect, the capitalist system, with its supply and demand mantra, its ‘markets’ and stock exchanges and the concentration of the world’s wealth in the hands of a fraction of individuals, dare one say openly, mainly the investment bankers of Wall Street? Not to mention pressure groups, lobbies and giant business interests, which dominate and direct the political apparatuses in cities big and small.
Crony capitalism, unbridled greed for profits by manipulating the system and outright fraud followed by bailouts at taxpayers’ expense have shaken the world’s trust in this cannibalistic form of capitalism. The ‘March on Wall Street’ movement, a symbolical expression of a common disgust by ordinary Americans was brutally suppressed in New York by mounted police. The movement struck a deep chord and was replicated in many European capitals. Modern day democracy will have to come up with a more equitable and just economic model, one that also caters to the needs of those at the lowest end of the social scale.
It is mistakenly said that democracy ‘triumphed’ over all other systems in the disastrous 20th century, which witnessed two world wars, and saw the rise of communism, Fascism and National Socialism. But in the Second World War, which was an epic struggle for world domination, the victorious allies included (the then) Great Britain and the ultra-capitalist USA on the one hand, and an ultra-Marxist state, the Soviet Union, headed by that ‘inimitable democrat’ Uncle Joseph Stalin on the other. The European democracies, except for the ‘Western Isle’ quickly fell before the German blitzkrieg, and the watershed battles that turned the tide of war in the Allies favour were actually fought in the Soviet hinterland.
In fact, ‘democracy’ barely scraped through by the skin of its teeth.
Democracy’s strong point was and remains its dogma of freedom of expression, its emphasis on personal liberty and civil rights, and the choice for all citizens of a life dictated by one’s own preferences. But as one political writer has remarked in its modern context, democracy may be of the people, for the people, but definitely not by the people in its genuine sense. The politicians and the bureaucrats have seen to that.
