In Defence Of India’s Noisy Democracy

Newspaper Rainbow Series 10th July 2021 Save

Download PDF (English)

Context: Rather than look to China, it is time to defend the noise of Indian democracy.

China’s and India’s divergent developmental pathways

Economic achievements of China	Comparatively, a mixed pathway of India
Grown faster and more dynamically than any country in history, and, in the process, hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty and achieved dramatic improvements in social indicators.	Since the 1990s, the Indian economy has grown impressively, but it remains far behind China in its global competitiveness. Though poverty has come down, employment prospects for the majority remain limited to low-wage informal sector jobs. Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen have pointed out, India has actually fallen behind Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Critical analysis of India’s democratic developmental pathway

India is too democratic: Unlike China, making and implementing key decisions about public investment and various reforms is impossible in the din of multiple and contradictory democratic voices in India.
Rise of elected authoritarianism: Limitations of the democratic system had pushed circumstances for the rise of elected autocrats from all sections of politics.
Social shifts – the pursuit of Hindutva, a prototypical variant of authoritarian ethnic nationalism, has shaken India’s democratic norms and institutional foundations and weaponised a politics of polarisation and demonisation that threaten to unravel the social fabric of the nation.

Democracy and development

Better performance: Democratic regimes have on balance performed better than non-democratic regimes. For e.g. -

History of the failure of authoritarianism: Regimes in Africa and West Asia failed to take off, Latin American military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s had a terrible economic and social record.
Democracy facilitating social changes: Return of democracy and “pink wave” of Left populist parties ushered prosperity and social progress in countries like Taiwan and South Korea.
Lessons from within India: Developmental path of Kerala and Tamil Nadu shown development and democracy can thrive together.

Inclusive decision making:

Democracy allows space for negotiation and compromise: Democratic leaders had to respond to a broad spectrum of interests and identities not only protects against catastrophic decisions but allows a middle ground for negotiation and compromise.
Welfare state policies in India: Remarkable progress achieved through successful policy interventions such as National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the Right To Information, the right to food and other programmes etc.

Preserving individual liberty and human rights: India’s tryst with democracy is born out of liberation movement and cultural affinity for equality by endowing all citizens and groups the same civic, political and social rights.

Despite shortcomings, the Indian developmental model opened social and political spaces for subordinate groups and has built a sense of shared identity and belonging.

Conclusion: Less democracy is good for development does not stand up to comparative, theoretical and ethical scrutiny; thus, rather than looking to China, it is time to defend the noise of Indian democracy.