Backpage

THE Indian discourse on the state of our democracy remains deeply schizophrenic. At one level our leaders and commentators favour a self-description as ‘the world’s largest democracy’, slyly placing India among the ‘advanced and mature’ western democracies while emphatically distancing it from less fortunate neighbours, pointing to their proclivity to ever so often lapse into authoritarian/military governing arrangements. Yet internally, both experts and lay citizens have for long expressed a deep concern about the state of our democratic institutions, practices and values. Sometimes, so extreme is the disgust and self-loathing that one wonders if the last six plus decades as an independent republic have only been an exercise in collective myth-making and amnesia.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on subjective assessments, whether our own or of experts, to get a better sense of what our people think about the idea of democracy, what it means to them, the level of trust we have in our public institutions, the vibrancy of our civil society organizations, the degree to which ‘democratic’ norms and values have been internalized, and so on – in brief, where do we, as a nation and people, stand and how we have changed over time. The recently released report, ‘State of Democracy in India’, prepared by the Lokniti team and the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, has enough data and analysis to keep all of us interested and busy for some time.

Even as it will take some time for a more considered response, nevertheless, the summary tables and presentation at the report’s release raise some intriguing questions. More specifically, the suggestion that over the decade since the previous survey was carried out, the proportion of respondents willing to express conditional support to non-democratic/authoritarian arrangements has risen, though marginally, is worrying. Worse, at first glance the data suggests greater support for authoritarian measures amongst the better-off, upper caste, better-educated, metro residents. However, when read against the data on increasing electoral turnouts and participation, both amongst the rural disadvantaged/marginalized as also the urban middle classes who traditionally were among the low participants, the picture becomes muddied. So, is the Indian story one of deeper and growing democratization, whatever the infirmities, or should we be more concerned about the limits of our institutional architecture drowning out our potential.

Both literature and experience from other parts of the world warns about the Janus-faced character of the middle class property owners, traders, professionals. These strata provide the leadership of both the democratic movements as also of the critics and subverters; help the transition towards a more impersonal and rule-based system, but equally display an impatience with procedures seen as ‘slowing down’ delivery, and arrangements which ‘pander to’ the masses – subsides, affirmative action, legal entitlements and so on. The impatience can lead to an express preference for short-cuts, a privileging of results over procedure, and a proclivity to muzzle dissent. Sounds familiar?

A second intriguing piece of data relates to a ‘dramatic’ upsurge in the trust in Parliament, even as the overall picture of trust, measured for ten different institutions – local to national, electoral and non-electoral – remains stable. Unsurprisingly, trust levels in non-electoral institutions like the Army, Election Commission, Supreme Court, to list a few – staffed by experts and, in relative terms, distanced from the citizens – remains high. Equally, institutions like the police, local government, politicians and political parties enjoy depressingly low levels of trust.

In itself, this is not surprising. Familiarity and more regular/everyday interaction with public institutions charged with ensuring delivery of public goods and services is often an unpleasant experience. Rude behaviours, demand for bribes combined with an inflated sense of importance and power, is a deeply internalized social truth. Unfortunately, media portrayals do little to dispel this image, whatever the reality. An improved perception for the Parliament – both the institution and its members – thus comes as a surprise.

Most media portrayals of the functioning of Parliament and the behaviour of parliamentarians – within the House and outside – cannot be called flattering. So what explains the survey results? Is it, perchance, that hegemonic media descriptions only reflect the social bias of the better-off, urban elite, while the ‘masses’ who need the promise embedded in democratic arrangements have a different perception?

Hopefully, a closer reading of the survey data will help us interrogate our own perceptions/prejudices. At stake is both how we understand and what we are willing to do to rework our political arrangements.

Harsh Sethi