In Defence Of India’s Noisy Democracy

The Hindu     10th July 2021     Save    

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.