[ad_1]
As things stand, US President Joe Biden’s first ‘Summit for Democracy’ is unlikely to even earn a footnote in the history books of the future. This brush-off, however, has precious little to do with any waning appeal of political systems based on popular sovereignty and free and fair elections.
Regardless of the divergent meanings attached to it, democracy as an ideal still has a phenomenal hold over the human imagination, so much so that regimes based on a disregard of popular feelings are often forced to genuflect at the altar of the idea. Pakistan’s genial Field Marshal Ayub Khan — once a favourite of the US — felt it necessary to describe his system as ‘Basic Democracy’ to explain why some citizens had the vote and others didn’t. Likewise, the ‘democratic centralism’ popularised by Lenin and his successors in the erstwhile Soviet Union, as an alternative to ‘bourgeois democracy’, was a fig-leaf for the dictatorship of the politburo. And in Iran where a ‘Supreme Leader’ is always the last word, candidates for office in the Islamic Republic must be ideologically vetted before their nominations for elected office are approved. Democracy, therefore, comes in many shapes and sizes and covers a multitude of sins.
It would be unfair to suggest that the White House is unaware of the fact that democracy is such a broad church that exclusion is bound to be deemed arbitrary. The Freedom House index — that gives countries a “freedom score” — may hold a great deal of sanctity to those who are partial to the US way of conducting public life and the ideals that the European Union apparently stands for, but this system of marking is seriously contested. In recent years, Hungary, the only EU state left off the 110-country guest list for Biden’s summit, and Poland have been at the receiving end of EU ire because their views on national sovereignty and judicial oversight, not to mention press freedom, are different. Likewise, an established democracy such as the UK, which quit the EU, has been institutionally unenthusiastic about Scotland determining its future status on the strength of momentary emotions.
The very practice of democracy, it would seem, is grounded in some unwritten faith in the superior wisdom of some gatekeepers. The 19th century German nationalist writer Heinrich Trietschke may have been unacceptably blunt, but he wasn’t being disingenuous in suggesting (in the context of the German claims over Alsace-Lorraine): “We Germans, who know both Germany and France, know better what is good of the Alsations than do those unhappy people themselves… We desire, even against their will, to restore them to themselves.” Ironically, this haughty arrogance often finds reflection in judicial pronouncements, particularly on subjects that have very little to do with law.
At the heart of the problem is the tussle between individual rights and collective desires. The Covid-19 pandemic has created fissures in the West over the supposed discriminatory treatment of those who have chosen to remain unvaccinated. This vocal minority believes they are exercising individual choice and outlawing their presence on the streets and on public transport is a human rights violation, a stand that is at odds with the majority that seeks to insulate themselves and their families from infection. Safeguarding those who may not know what they are doing is also one of the considerations of those in India who seek an outright ban in the speculative trading in crypto assets. On its part, New Zealand has deemed that anyone born after 2008 will have to endure a lifelong ban on smoking and purchasing tobacco products.
It is unlikely that the more esoteric hiccups confronting democracy will find place in President Biden’s Democracy Summit, guaranteed to be dominated by the speeches of leaders and the unspoken subtext centred on the threat of China’s unrelenting hegemonism. However, the unintended consequence of putting the spotlight on democracy is the parallel exposure of fringe grievances. It may safely be said that the aftermath of this summit will be a belief among the andolanjeevis — Prime Minister Modi’s description of the permanently aggrieved — that their relevance is to be found among a global audience and to hell with what the national audience is thinking. By underwriting and bankrolling the advocacy endeavours of fringe causes — some political and others’ lifestyle — many western governments and multilateral bodies, including the EU and UN, are unwittingly doing their bit to erode trust in democratic systems.
Democracy is never perfect and never uniform in character. Its practice is invariably determined by context which includes a determination of national character and the need for stability. There is no one-size-fits-all democracy and any attempt to codify a nebulous ideal is a lot of hot air.
Regardless of the divergent meanings attached to it, democracy as an ideal still has a phenomenal hold over the human imagination, so much so that regimes based on a disregard of popular feelings are often forced to genuflect at the altar of the idea. Pakistan’s genial Field Marshal Ayub Khan — once a favourite of the US — felt it necessary to describe his system as ‘Basic Democracy’ to explain why some citizens had the vote and others didn’t. Likewise, the ‘democratic centralism’ popularised by Lenin and his successors in the erstwhile Soviet Union, as an alternative to ‘bourgeois democracy’, was a fig-leaf for the dictatorship of the politburo. And in Iran where a ‘Supreme Leader’ is always the last word, candidates for office in the Islamic Republic must be ideologically vetted before their nominations for elected office are approved. Democracy, therefore, comes in many shapes and sizes and covers a multitude of sins.
It would be unfair to suggest that the White House is unaware of the fact that democracy is such a broad church that exclusion is bound to be deemed arbitrary. The Freedom House index — that gives countries a “freedom score” — may hold a great deal of sanctity to those who are partial to the US way of conducting public life and the ideals that the European Union apparently stands for, but this system of marking is seriously contested. In recent years, Hungary, the only EU state left off the 110-country guest list for Biden’s summit, and Poland have been at the receiving end of EU ire because their views on national sovereignty and judicial oversight, not to mention press freedom, are different. Likewise, an established democracy such as the UK, which quit the EU, has been institutionally unenthusiastic about Scotland determining its future status on the strength of momentary emotions.
The very practice of democracy, it would seem, is grounded in some unwritten faith in the superior wisdom of some gatekeepers. The 19th century German nationalist writer Heinrich Trietschke may have been unacceptably blunt, but he wasn’t being disingenuous in suggesting (in the context of the German claims over Alsace-Lorraine): “We Germans, who know both Germany and France, know better what is good of the Alsations than do those unhappy people themselves… We desire, even against their will, to restore them to themselves.” Ironically, this haughty arrogance often finds reflection in judicial pronouncements, particularly on subjects that have very little to do with law.
At the heart of the problem is the tussle between individual rights and collective desires. The Covid-19 pandemic has created fissures in the West over the supposed discriminatory treatment of those who have chosen to remain unvaccinated. This vocal minority believes they are exercising individual choice and outlawing their presence on the streets and on public transport is a human rights violation, a stand that is at odds with the majority that seeks to insulate themselves and their families from infection. Safeguarding those who may not know what they are doing is also one of the considerations of those in India who seek an outright ban in the speculative trading in crypto assets. On its part, New Zealand has deemed that anyone born after 2008 will have to endure a lifelong ban on smoking and purchasing tobacco products.
It is unlikely that the more esoteric hiccups confronting democracy will find place in President Biden’s Democracy Summit, guaranteed to be dominated by the speeches of leaders and the unspoken subtext centred on the threat of China’s unrelenting hegemonism. However, the unintended consequence of putting the spotlight on democracy is the parallel exposure of fringe grievances. It may safely be said that the aftermath of this summit will be a belief among the andolanjeevis — Prime Minister Modi’s description of the permanently aggrieved — that their relevance is to be found among a global audience and to hell with what the national audience is thinking. By underwriting and bankrolling the advocacy endeavours of fringe causes — some political and others’ lifestyle — many western governments and multilateral bodies, including the EU and UN, are unwittingly doing their bit to erode trust in democratic systems.
Democracy is never perfect and never uniform in character. Its practice is invariably determined by context which includes a determination of national character and the need for stability. There is no one-size-fits-all democracy and any attempt to codify a nebulous ideal is a lot of hot air.
[ad_2]
Source link
