By Patricia Mukhim
Friday the 19th September will be a landmark for the way democracy is practised in Meghalaya. Mr Ardent Basaiawmoit who is both legislator (MLA) and councilor (MDC) and the executive head of the latter will be seeking the public’s views about whether what he is doing in the Khasi Hills District Council, namely (1) reining in the non-tribal traders who have ostensibly been carrying out their trade without the mandatory trading license (2) cleaning up the Iewduh of all muck (3) going into expenses incurred by the previous Congress-led Executive Committee such as in constructing the much vaunted Heritage Site at Mawphlang and the conduct of the Monolith Festival which he sees as a needless extravaganza. There may be other issues that Mr AB is raking up which, according to him, are good for the health of the Council or so we are told. What has got the goat of the United Democratic Party (UDP) which is the supporting partner in this coalition is Mr AB’s style of functioning which is closer to that of Mr Xi Jinping the Chinese President currently visiting India. He is not cut out for team work because of the super-ego in the form of his inner voice which says, “You are the best.”
Unfortunately we are a democracy. At least that is what we believe we are. Hence being a leader of a democratic country means a lot of listening and less of talking. Most of our self-styled leaders unfortunately, do the opposite. They lecture and brainwash and then ask the people to shout their assent. And like Phrangsngi Pyrtuh has pointed out in these columns people are swayed by demagogues like Mark Antony and will rally behind him for as long as it suits them. Public opinion being fickle, the same people will shout down the same leader they allowed to ride to glory. Incidentally, the chief Minister of Meghalaya suffers from the same predicament. He too is no team player. But team playing is a tough call. Even as little kids we were wont to run away with the marbles we did not win and to fight over what is not ours. These are signs of bad team playing or as Robert Putnam so succinctly puts it as “Bowling Alone.” You can’t go bowling alone. You need friends with whom to play. Similarly you need a team to run the Government and a team to run the Council.
But we are entering dangerous territory here in Meghalaya. The affairs of the Council were recently decided outside its precincts. Today it will be decided at the Students Field, a venue that has seen the rise and fall of many a Khasi leader. I wonder if there is an equivalent of a Students’ Field in Jowai or Tura. And this brings me to an interesting book named, “Democracy Against Itself” by Mark Chou (Published by Edinburgh University Press and costing a whopping 80 pounds or the equivalent of Rs 7500). Chou asks why some democracies go on self-destruction mode? Using the collapse of democracy in ancient Athens and the uncertain fate of democratic rule in the United States as illustrative examples, Mark Chou examines the conditions and characteristics of democracy that make it prone to self-destruct. Drawing political lessons from these past collapses, he explains how a democracy can, simply by being democratic, sow the seeds of its own destruction. Chou believes that democracy as it was envisaged does not exist today and those who believe it does are sustaining an unsustainable idea.
Chou’s idea which comes from rigorous study of several democracies is that mere mobilization of large numbers of people around an idea is not necessarily a democratic move. He says that has the potential to immobilize the democratic process, sometimes for an extended period of time. The result of this suspension of democracy will not necessarily produce authoritarian or totalitarian regimes but other forms of government not completely at odds with democracy. But regardless of what form of political governance arises, it will have nevertheless ended the run of democracy in its present form. John Keane in an essay points out that democracies can “commit democide,’ (die in their own hands) if they fail to redress the political crises they manufacture, whether because of individual freedom, bureaucratic morass or the sluggishness of democratic politics. Though scholars of democracy will not readily admit to this and find it hard to come to terms with the idea, Keane says the “vexing thought that democracy as we now know it in all its geographic and historical variations might not survive indefinitely, that it could slit its own throat or quietly take its own life in an act of ‘democide’ is confirmed both by democracy’s historical decline and the view that “democracy may well turn out to be a campfire on ice.”
Chou buttresses his arguments about the collapse of mature or strong democracies after studying several democracies including some which seemed near impenetrable to attack. So what does it mean for a democracy to sow the seeds of its own destruction? Alexander Kirshner says a democracy can destroy itself or be subjected to what he labels as a “popular threat” when a “group credibly intends to use democratic procedures to win power, stymie democratic institutions, and undermine democracy itself.” The idea behind this claim is that in a democracy questions can be legitimately raised not only about the nature of the democracy but also about its very foundations. There is nothing that cannot be interrogated and revoked. And because democratic principles and processes, in theory at least, are premised on the participation of the entire citizenry on all matters related to that society, a diverse range of perspectives and proposals can emerge. Though these are most frequently related to micro issues a democracy can also call on its citizens to think about deeper questions to do with their way of life. When this occurs, that democracy will almost certainly open itself up to varying dissenting views and attacks because, as Kirshner argues, “all democratic regimes include members who prefer other forms of government” and on rare occasions “those who oppose democracy may stymie representative institutions or disenfranchise minorities.” Enfranchising the masses necessarily means giving a political voice to those who will disdain democratic configurations. Therefore, by being democratic it is possible, if not always likely, that a democracy will permit itself to be defeated from within.
In practice, what this means is that sometimes a democracy can legitimately bring about totalitarianism. In fact, totalitarianism remains entrenched in the logic of democracy and sometimes becomes the natural corollary to the difficulties and freedoms imposed by democracy on itself. Moss draws an interesting analogy between the collapse of democracy and the transformation of boiling water into steam. Like boiling water a democracy tolerates debate, dissent and emendation to its basic principles and processes. To a certain extent, a democracy will even become more refined through such a process which is no different to water when it is boiled. But that only holds true up to a point: water, once boiled, will eventually evaporate and transform into steam just as democracy, when pushed far enough by its own citizens, can morph into something else. Perhaps its undoing will only be temporary given that debate and dissent will not be silenced for long, even if formal opposition then becomes more difficult under a system of governance less favorable to popular rule. Yet, however temporary that suspension is, what this shows is that democracies can suffer from debilitating crises of their own making. They can, by being democratic, self destruct.
A democratic Ardent Basaiawmoit should have engaged in a debate with intellectual equals and peers in the Council or in a venue that allows for insightful interrogation by those with the acumen and equanimity to interrogate into the present antics in the KHADC. In a field you can only have demagoguery. Demagoguery is no substitute for a democratic engagement. In the Student’s Field, AB will be doing what the Fuehrer does best – ‘Manufacture Consent.’ Looks like it’s the end of the road for Democracy in KHADC!