The importance of expression means that democracy is messy!

It has been a few days since I last posted anything here, because I had imposed on myself a ban on blogging until Monday.  For personal reasons.

The ban did not work out the way I thought it would.  I was becoming more and more unproductive.  It was seriously affecting my state of mind.

Thus, when I found that I was wide awake at almost the same ungodly hour when the whole thing began a few days ago, I knew that as the one who imposed the ban, I had to release myself from that ban.

I wonder if that experience was also the subconscious trigger behind this piece, which I have sent to the editor for possible publication.

Even as the the US government reached partial shutdown, newspaper cartoonists and friends in India started wisecracking on the topic. Their jokes were typically variations of “India is far ahead of America. Congress shut down our government years before Congress shut down the US government.”

The reference in India is to the party that is currently in power--the Indian National Congress, which is almost always referred to as the Congress Party--and the ineffectiveness of the government led by the prime minister, Manmohan Singh.

Dysfunctional politics and governance in the two largest democracies on either side of this world offer plenty to think about.

At the outset, these are situations in which we can recall Winston Churchil’s wonderful observation that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Of the many reasons why democratic governance becomes messy, opposition to ideas plays a significant role. Humans we are with our own perspectives on life and the role of government, we are bound to differ on how to govern ourselves.  The more argumentative the culture, the more diverse and spirited the views are and, opposition, does not always have to constructive either.  The result is what we see both in the United States and in India.

It is tempting, in such situations, to look across at Russia and China and note that their governments are more “efficient.”  A few months ago, well before this partial shut down, even the New York Times columnists, Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof, had written about how the Chinese get things done while we squabble here.  When Valdimir Putin effortlessly pushes ahead with his agenda, there are appreciative comments as well.

But, such a mess that we find ourselves in comes with the package of democracy that we prefer.  We engage in the war of ideas, however extreme some are, because it is only democracy that allows for such expression--a freedom that does not exist in Russia or China and many other countries of the world.

In India, there are plenty of people who then fondly look across the border at China and wonder whether their country would benefit from lesser freedoms.  Commentaries are in plenty there on how a Putin-like strong leader is what the country needs now.

There is, therefore, a significant support for Narendra Modi, who is the anointed prime ministerial candidate if his party were to win the elections next spring.  But, Modi comes with a huge baggage of anti-democratic past.  His decisions as the chief minister (the equivalent to the governor here in the US) of the state of Gujarat, especially during the religious riots in 2002, are why the US government has consistently refused to grant him a visa.   Of course, it is not that the US holds every foreign leader to the same standard--after all, we do heartily welcome leaders from other countries with a lot more anti-democratic baggage.  But, that is realpolitik!

The mess of democracy will only get messier into the future.  The more individuals feel empowered, the more we can and should expect them to voice their opinions.  Compared to the the bad old days of India, contemporary India has truly enfranchised millions of people.  The US of today is vastly better than the country of even two decades ago when it comes to the involvement of women and minorities in political discussions.  Both these democracies have progressed along a healthy path of systematically including into the fold those who had been systematically excluded before.  There is a lot more work to be done, yes, but the progress is to be lauded.

The internet and social media have further provided immensely more opportunities than have ever existed before for people to rally behind ideas with which they sympathize   We can expect a lot more “Twitter Revolutions.”  All these will also make easy to organize a significant vocal minority, which is all it takes to make governance in India or the US seemingly dysfunctional.

It does not mean that I am delighted with the chaos in these two large democracies.  I wish that opposition would always be responsible and constructive, and not merely for the sake of opposing.

I even worry that other countries that are slowly emerging from dictatorial and authoritarian regimes might then prefer a Russia or a China model for their own governance, instead of being inspired by Lady Liberty, who was such a powerful symbol even during the fateful protests in China’s Tiananmen Square in 1989.

However, at the end of it all, there is no doubt that I am delighted to have a life that has been enriched by two democracies, warts and all!