Is democracy an outcome?
India has had many triumphs and Indians have much to boast. We have noticed our lecturers are proud of their country’s democracy. As any good patriot is wont to do, they argue that India’s political system surpasses its peers; its achievement of democracy through nonviolent, widespread, grassroots political movement was an end in and of itself.
While this perspective is natural and grounded in academic dialogue, we couldn’t help but take issue with the notion of democracy as a value. Rather than an ideal or an outcome, democracy is a means or a tool by which we achieve other outcomes. It’s a system of governance that facilitates participation and self-determination (and a good one!). It’s an institution that allows the voice of the people to be expressed through free and fair elections and representation in decision-making bodies.
We find democracy to be a means to an end. It is a way that people can live together in community so that the best possible decisions are made in the fairest way possible. While not the most efficient means of organizing people, it seems to be the best system out there for protecting people’s rights—but therein lies the distinction. Democracy is a way to achieve the more important outcome of upholding freedoms and supporting the general welfare.
These other values supersede the notion of democracy as an absolute value. People require the right to make choices about their livelihood, the ability to participate in decisions made regarding their fate, to have informed consent when one of their liberties might be withdrawn or exchanged. But what good is democracy if it doesn’t deliver? Why have a government if not to protect citizens from external powers and realize the will of the people?
Does democracy deliver?
Government, which has been around in some form or fashion just as long as humanity, has appropriately evolved along with human civilization. Whereas civilization used to be nomadic tribes, government used to be a tool of the powerful; civilization has become increasingly complex and now consists of modern societies. Government too has changed: constitutions the world over currently acknowledge that government ought to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. India, of course, embodies these ideals best of all developing nations, thanks to its democratic institutions and values. And yet, for many people in India, this striking achievement means little.
If the point of modern government is to serve the people—as in, actually give them services such as education, security, and justice—then it is by these criteria that government should be judged. When people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake, simply being a democracy is not good enough. India urgently needs to deliver infrastructure, education, and health care to its people, regardless what kind of government it has. Indeed, for Indians living in the slum, education is their definition of freedom; thus they are not free, despite the fact that they live in the middle of a country which has adopted the world’s most best and free system of governance.
The power of a democracy is that every citizen can use his voice to be heard, to choose, and to enact change if it is needed. But if the government continually fails, then choice becomes worthless; if one regime after another cannot deliver, then votes become meaningless. And there is nothing that democracy by itself can do about this, because democracy is only a method of government; it is only a tool. What India needs is a development strategy which will translate their ideals and values into reality—and it absolutely needs to realize that democracy is not that strategy—at least in the form it is today.
Do other forms of government deliver?
We have also noticed that while many of our professors expound upon India’s democracy, they simultaneously criticize the Chinese method (aka “Market-Leninism.”) Much of what we hear sounds almost condescending, as though India is automatically superior to China because of its political system. But our generation, which has watched China rise, may not believe a country is successful just because it’s a democracy.
While the professors constantly refer to the many problems that come with the Chinese system (and we readily admit that there are many problems—the least of which, human rights.) But there is no talk of the many benefits that the Chinese government has provided for its people – benefits that the Indian government has not provided. For example, the literacy rate in China is close to 90% while in India it’s only 65%; the PRC government has made primary education a priority. And the Chinese government has invested billions of dollars in the country’s infrastructure, and in combating issues like water shortages and climate change.
Also, the argument that the Chinese government does not provide for its people because they are not elected is misguided. The CCP’s number one priority is staying in power. If they did not make any effort to better the life of China’s citizens or to keep the country’s growth rate steady, they would not remain in power for very long. The economic growth of the country is the CCP’s lifeline. This is not to say that we agree with authoritarianism—quite the contrary. But to write off China as a lesser country because it is authoritarian is too simplistic. A government should be judged by how much it provides to its citizens, not just on the fact that it is voted into office. And in the Indian system, it seems to us that many officials are voted into office, and then fail to live up to many promises.
Pushing democracy
No democracy is perfect. We can point out flaws in every state claiming to be democratic—India and the U.S. notwithstanding—just as we can point out flaws in every state across the globe. However, that doesn’t mean that we should be complacent about their shortcomings. Each citizenry should push its elected officials (no matter how corrupt) to look and act more like textbook democracy and to live out the desired outcomes of democratic rule: free and fair elections, clean drinking water, access to primary education, self determination, informed consent, participation, and the freedom to support one’s own livelihood.
It is these values that must be protected and lauded. Democracy exists to make sure states protect people’s fundamental rights. Without a just system of governance like democracy, people may not be able to satisfy the needs of the human condition. Winston Churchill reminds us that “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms of government.”
While we are discussing these issues of democracy, we learn that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has been shot in Tucson. This has brought up new problems in regards to how democracy can flourish. How can elected officials remain in touch with their constituents if they fear for their safety? The US system of democracy should clearly be affected by this event. Our work as a citizenry is to respond to the brokenness we find in our system—to the safety of elected officials in the US, for example, to the corruption that detracts from public goods in India.
All this said, we would like to point out that we are patriots. We love America. But what kind of citizens would we be if we didn’t grapple with democracy as a governance structure and participate in making it better? After all, Gandhi reminds us to be the change we wish to see in the world. So we question the idea of democracy as a value, and push democracy further to be the means to fulfilling greater goals—of human dignity, the ability to make choices, and the freedom of self determination.
Dori Enderle, MPIA 2011; Elizabeth Solch, MPIA 2012; Joy Jauer, MPSA 2012
India has had many triumphs and Indians have much to boast. We have noticed our lecturers are proud of their country’s democracy. As any good patriot is wont to do, they argue that India’s political system surpasses its peers; its achievement of democracy through nonviolent, widespread, grassroots political movement was an end in and of itself.
We find democracy to be a means to an end. It is a way that people can live together in community so that the best possible decisions are made in the fairest way possible. While not the most efficient means of organizing people, it seems to be the best system out there for protecting people’s rights—but therein lies the distinction. Democracy is a way to achieve the more important outcome of upholding freedoms and supporting the general welfare.
These other values supersede the notion of democracy as an absolute value. People require the right to make choices about their livelihood, the ability to participate in decisions made regarding their fate, to have informed consent when one of their liberties might be withdrawn or exchanged. But what good is democracy if it doesn’t deliver? Why have a government if not to protect citizens from external powers and realize the will of the people?Does democracy deliver?
Government, which has been around in some form or fashion just as long as humanity, has appropriately evolved along with human civilization. Whereas civilization used to be nomadic tribes, government used to be a tool of the powerful; civilization has become increasingly complex and now consists of modern societies. Government too has changed: constitutions the world over currently acknowledge that government ought to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. India, of course, embodies these ideals best of all developing nations, thanks to its democratic institutions and values. And yet, for many people in India, this striking achievement means little.
If the point of modern government is to serve the people—as in, actually give them services such as education, security, and justice—then it is by these criteria that government should be judged. When people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake, simply being a democracy is not good enough. India urgently needs to deliver infrastructure, education, and health care to its people, regardless what kind of government it has. Indeed, for Indians living in the slum, education is their definition of freedom; thus they are not free, despite the fact that they live in the middle of a country which has adopted the world’s most best and free system of governance.The power of a democracy is that every citizen can use his voice to be heard, to choose, and to enact change if it is needed. But if the government continually fails, then choice becomes worthless; if one regime after another cannot deliver, then votes become meaningless. And there is nothing that democracy by itself can do about this, because democracy is only a method of government; it is only a tool. What India needs is a development strategy which will translate their ideals and values into reality—and it absolutely needs to realize that democracy is not that strategy—at least in the form it is today.
Do other forms of government deliver?
We have also noticed that while many of our professors expound upon India’s democracy, they simultaneously criticize the Chinese method (aka “Market-Leninism.”) Much of what we hear sounds almost condescending, as though India is automatically superior to China because of its political system. But our generation, which has watched China rise, may not believe a country is successful just because it’s a democracy.
While the professors constantly refer to the many problems that come with the Chinese system (and we readily admit that there are many problems—the least of which, human rights.) But there is no talk of the many benefits that the Chinese government has provided for its people – benefits that the Indian government has not provided. For example, the literacy rate in China is close to 90% while in India it’s only 65%; the PRC government has made primary education a priority. And the Chinese government has invested billions of dollars in the country’s infrastructure, and in combating issues like water shortages and climate change.
Also, the argument that the Chinese government does not provide for its people because they are not elected is misguided. The CCP’s number one priority is staying in power. If they did not make any effort to better the life of China’s citizens or to keep the country’s growth rate steady, they would not remain in power for very long. The economic growth of the country is the CCP’s lifeline. This is not to say that we agree with authoritarianism—quite the contrary. But to write off China as a lesser country because it is authoritarian is too simplistic. A government should be judged by how much it provides to its citizens, not just on the fact that it is voted into office. And in the Indian system, it seems to us that many officials are voted into office, and then fail to live up to many promises.
Pushing democracy
No democracy is perfect. We can point out flaws in every state claiming to be democratic—India and the U.S. notwithstanding—just as we can point out flaws in every state across the globe. However, that doesn’t mean that we should be complacent about their shortcomings. Each citizenry should push its elected officials (no matter how corrupt) to look and act more like textbook democracy and to live out the desired outcomes of democratic rule: free and fair elections, clean drinking water, access to primary education, self determination, informed consent, participation, and the freedom to support one’s own livelihood.
It is these values that must be protected and lauded. Democracy exists to make sure states protect people’s fundamental rights. Without a just system of governance like democracy, people may not be able to satisfy the needs of the human condition. Winston Churchill reminds us that “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms of government.”
While we are discussing these issues of democracy, we learn that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has been shot in Tucson. This has brought up new problems in regards to how democracy can flourish. How can elected officials remain in touch with their constituents if they fear for their safety? The US system of democracy should clearly be affected by this event. Our work as a citizenry is to respond to the brokenness we find in our system—to the safety of elected officials in the US, for example, to the corruption that detracts from public goods in India.
All this said, we would like to point out that we are patriots. We love America. But what kind of citizens would we be if we didn’t grapple with democracy as a governance structure and participate in making it better? After all, Gandhi reminds us to be the change we wish to see in the world. So we question the idea of democracy as a value, and push democracy further to be the means to fulfilling greater goals—of human dignity, the ability to make choices, and the freedom of self determination.Dori Enderle, MPIA 2011; Elizabeth Solch, MPIA 2012; Joy Jauer, MPSA 2012
I liked reading the essay because it is well thought out and very well written. the way I understood blogsw should be (but don't get me started on how much I value effort). That said, the essay is ideological, without going the hardhearted distance. The counterexamples with china indicate that democracy in India has failed to produce. Is democracy then, not the answer? I heard mixed messages even about the US. I think the power of democracy is being able to keep a society from plunging into chaos by affording the institutions that solve problems w/o resorting to extreme measures. By that measure does India stand up. very well, because it manages the disparateness of the population well. There are no religious tensions, unless they are politically fomented. Riots are rare. Yes there is civil strife but becuase democarcy has been abused by people in power, in the way that all people in power abuse it if they can. Democracy does not solve the monitoring problem -- if the population is empowered, they will monitor. Does democracy empoer its polity? Not in India, unfortunately.
ReplyDeletethat was me. kg
ReplyDelete