Using Democracy to Deploy Demagoguery, and ultimately Theocracy

That the democracy of India is under pressure and is ceding ground to dictatorial forces is the popular narrative of opposition parties. Is it so? One, electoral politics is still intact and people are electing their representatives at various levels of governance by way of universal adult franchise. Two, institutions are functional- legislature, executive and judiciary- albeit with lapses that have long-prevailed and are deeply entrenched. Three, there has been no explicit attempt by the ruling party to subvert the basic structure of the Indian constitution. What is it then? All democratic elements appear to be in place but why aren’t they delivering expected outcomes including inclusive development and rule of law?

Let’s recall what Socrates once argued. The philosopher was a critic of universal suffrage- the right to vote to all adults irrespective of gender, faith, class, caste and race. He gave a convincing argument when he compared the society to a ship. Who should be in charge of the ship when we plan for a journey by sea? Socrates preferred a person having proper knowledge of seafaring over any other who could win the popular vote on the back of rhetoric and good oratory skills. In this sense, Socrates pointed out that voting in polls is a skill, not mere intuition.

The philosopher highlighted the difference between intellectual democracy and democracy by birthright. While the first can be criticized on various grounds, the latter is even more dangerous when it paves the way for demagoguery (appealing to common people’s desires and prejudices to garner political support).

That’s what is exactly happening in today’s India. Democracy by birthright is intact. In reality, the ruling party is persuading people to step out of their homes on polling day to ensure a clear mandate. How can then anyone justify that India’s democratic fabric is under threat? In fact, such diagnosis is not only unproductive, it is also counter-productive. The problem lies elsewhere. What we need to consider is how the two key pillars of any progressive society- democracy and secularism- are being pitched against one another, and how this is leading to the rise of dictatorial forces even as democracy underpins the entire arrangement.

Gandhi’s ideology and that of most nationalists of pre-independence India is facing a threat that Gandhi did perceive during his time- the threat of majoritarianism. The situation today is this- many members of the upper class are backing the ruling party as they have nothing to lose since their plates are full, and in fact, they hold a belief that maybe someday they can have the same old privileges of class and caste order. And for the poor and middle class, the ruling party and upper dominating class have partnered to give the former a false sense of devotion and security in the name of faith and chauvinism. ‘Don’t think about you or your family; think about Him and borders’. That’s the message which has excellently been passed on (read sold) to the mass.

That’s it, simply, that is it. Democracy by birthright is hurting us; the cure, however, is not abolition of democracy but furthering intellectual democracy without compromising the idea of universal suffrage. For this to happen, the opposition has to educate the mass on a large scale by borrowing from the tactics employed by the then nationalists against British Raj. Send out messengers, hold sessions at ground level, publish material in local languages and engage the youth.

If not done in due time, the ruling party will use democracy to bring in theocracy, for they have already achieved the demagoguery feat.

BJP is a Regressive Idea- Take a Cue from Socrates

Terming anything regressive for the sake of it or to mislead the ordinary man is a different thing but doing it to defend the present and future interests of all citizens is different. Against this backdrop, let’s note why the presently dominating Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) is counter-productive to the socio-economic landscape of India. And this emanates from the way the party recruits its leaders, alongside the modus operandi that shrewdly markets and sells a glossy-looking but degenerative ideology.

First, the party has practically no leader who has the acumen to run the administration. Here, we need to know that oratory is a poles apart skill and cannot be likened to good administration. Had oratory been the indispensable attribute of a capable and productive leader, the founders of pyramid selling schemes would have delivered a perfect world where jobs were abundant and standard of living impeccable. In Gorgias- Socratic dialogue by Plato- Socrates argues that in comparison to an expert, a rhetorician is always ‘more convincing’ when persuading an ‘ignorant audience’. Socrates even equates rhetoricians with tyrants.

And it is here- in a nation that has yet to bring millions out of poverty and make health and education accessible for all- that BJP found the perfect breeding ground for rhetoric politics. With this approach, the party in its present form has recruited rhetoricians in its ranks, leaders who can be flawless at delivering speeches but clueless when it comes to run the administration. From CMs to cabinet ministers, the party has filled positions with leaders that bring to the table nothing but oratory and feel-good superficial ideas.

Second, the party is set to be even more regressive in years to come and there is a very strong argument in this favour. Presently, the high ranking officials in the party deploy hate as a means to garner support only when the need arises, typically around the time of elections. But the new recruits in the party, especially the youth seeking career in politics, know that the easiest way to make a quick impact is polarization and politicization of issues that place one community against the other. One does not need a vision to lift poor out of poverty but only an ability to incite hatred and bigotry.

Third, the party can never shed its roots that date back to pre-independence India. The predecessor to the party was Bhartiya Jana Sangh, the political arm of RSS. Founders included Syama Prasad Mukherjee, the man who was inducted by INC as minister even with his conflicting ideology. Mukherjee’s politics- where he opposed the Quit India Movement, demanded Bengal’s partition, and even allied with Muslim League to form provincial government- was not politics of good governance but that of rhetoric. The same legacy was carried forward by the man who was central to BJP’s ascendance on the national scene, Lal Krishna Advani. At a time when INC was losing ground, Advani exploited faith to garner support.

The problem here is that BJP leaders are now so inclined towards rhetoric that they have turned a blind eye to fallouts of such politics. Today, from health to education, orthodox and unfounded concepts have taken precedence over science and reasonableness. Here, vested interests are making profits even as the ordinary man is being deprived of any socio-economic progression. From unproven remedies for diseases to elite reinvigorating the dismantled caste order to dictatorial stance towards dissent, the ordinary man is losing, and the worst part is that the rhetorician has easily convinced him that all troubles will eventually do him some good.

BJP’s advance is counter-productive to the ordinary man. And Socrates’ critique of rhetorician is enough to understand this.