In Defence Of India’s Noisy Democracy

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

China’s and India’s divergent developmental pathways

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.