By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
Istanbul the capital of Turkey has caught the attention of the world. The residents have come together and stood up against the government proposal to raze a public park to make way for a shopping mall. A protest which is local in origin soon spread like wild fire and has caught the imagination of the Turkish people and the world.
Turkey has a long history of autocratic rule and made its democratic transition 10 years ago. The present ruler of the country Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been ruling for 10 years. He has placed Turkey on a high growth trajectory since assuming power. The protesters are however not happy with the way the government is run even though neo-liberal policies pursued by the country have reaped global admiration and appreciated especially by the western world. The success story of Turkey is often regarded as a role model for Islamic countries around the world. There is reason for the western country’s optimism with the Turkish success story.
The experiment in Turkey conforms with Seymour Martin Lipset’s modernization theory- embedded in the history of western democratic countries, where modernization precede democracy. According to Lipset’s theory, without economic progress and modernization, democracy would not flourish or survive. It is therefore assumed that Turkish democracy would mature as long as neo-liberal politics is steadfastly pursued.
Democracy cannot be forced on a country according to this theory since it would follow automatically once a country becomes prosperous. Going by this theory it is a matter of time before Erdogan’s autocratic rule ends. However the Turkish protest is turning the theory on its head. This theory, it seems, is confined to the experience of the western world since in many under-developed countries like South Korea and Taiwan, now two highly developed Asian countries- the democratic process and establishment has been concomitant with economic progress and modernity. Closer home democracy was thrust down on poor India when it achieved independence. It grew to become the largest democratic country of the world through the sheer number of its population. India is not developed yet, in fact some socio-economic data released by UN and other agencies have placed India in the same category with Sub-Saharan countries- the most underdeveloped region of the world. India did have its experience of autocratic rule and the emergency is testimony to this. Democracy ensured that Indira Gandhi’s dictatorial regime ended. We have come a long way since then but have we achieved true democracy? How much of our democracy is people’s democracy?
The neo-liberal agendas of the India state since 1991 have become unabashedly undemocratic, subverting democratic goals and principles in order to attract global capital to churn rapid economic development in this country. Development (of a few) is at loggerheads with democracy (of the masses). Democratic values and principles are often sacrificed when economic expediency supersedes the former. In the scramble to achieve economic goals, public inputs for discussion and debates is widely ignored. When dissent is expressed, force sanctioned by the democratic state is oppressively used. In fact, repressive policies employed by the Indian state to push development programs in tribal belts across the country has accelerated in recent times. Various anti-humanitarian activities to suppress these movements such as Salwa Judum – which is a gross violation of the constitution ( as pronounced by the Supreme Court) and human rights- were employed, all in the name of development.
In the pursuit of economic goals democratic institutions in fledgling democracies such as the judiciary and the media are compelled to toe the line and any form of opposition may invite the wrath of the state such as in Turkey. The opposition flaring from the public square in the Turkish capital is not directed at the democratic state but against Erdogan’s long autocratic reign. When protests such as those in Turkey persevere, the state readily brands them as Leftist or ‘Maoist’ sympathizers which it would justify while hammering a swift and massive crackdown. State machinery has been quite brutal and most effective to constrict public dissent.
According to neo-liberal politics, development is best achieved through a democratic set up which attracts global capital democratically even if that would not benefit the masses who have voluntarily chosen to constitute a democratic republic. Can we compromise on our democratic principles and values to facilitate fast-paced development? Will not that weaken our democratic institutions – the courts, the media etc in the name of development? Economic growth in this country buoyed by neo-liberal influence has in fact skewed our hard fought democracy which is succinctly enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution.
According to Prof. Niraja Gopal Jayal, democracy and development function under similar constraints and thus are equally subject to political negotiations. This is feasible if the political class reveres the principle of social optimization which is sadly no longer the case with the present political set-up. Their development agenda attenuate social welfare which distorts the logic of democracy.
Power of the masses has transcended to become power of the few which controls the needs of the many. Democracy is not about power concentration. If anything, it is to decentralize power (read empowerment) of the masses. Development is supposed to filter power to the people in a democratic set-up. Growth is certainly a necessary condition for enhancing welfare but not sufficient for augmenting democracy. There is a chasm on the kind of growth that the power controlling elite profess to achieve from the democratic inducing growth that transfers power to the people. As this widens, there is mistrust and animosity resulting in the kind of anti-state movements in different parts of the world with India being no exception.
Within the Indian state, many states are not developed such as Meghalaya. We have no choice but to follow the neo-liberal development programs of the Indian state. This filters down and affects the poorest of the poor in the most under-developed parts of the country such as the North Eastern region. The signs are on the wall. Those in power have already formed an axis- where family ties and bonds is just one manifestation among many. Are people’s opposition against democratically elected governments which enjoy the mandate of the people justified? Would such mass upheavals weaken or strengthen democracy? Yes, it is necessary to glean the system which would only enhance the logic of democracy.