I think this phrase is inherently paradoxical, but I have seen even the most enlightened of us make a case for it, particularly when democracy is seen to be lapsing into populism or failing otherwise.
Put quite simply, this is a system where a good strong leader makes effective decisions in the best interests of his people as he sees fit. Debates about whether this is really possible (which we will turn to later) aside, this is not such a new idea. Standard narratives in history as well as mythology, both Western and Eastern, abound in examples of "good kings", benevolent monarchs who ensured the almost Utopian well-being of his subjects, often to be contrasted with their Manichean binaries, the "evil kings" (of whom the examples are certainly more numerous). Historians of ancient Rome have actually listed "Five good emperors" and "Four bad emperors" (there were many more, but I guess these were the worst). Such categorizations obviously need to be taken with copious pinches of salt, not least because the writing of history is not an exact science, and often which emperor is being eulogized is a question of personal allegiances and prejudices.So much for ancient history (and folklore and mythology), but why would one seek to invoke such archaic-looking systems in a modern world, where the panacea of democracy has been "invented" and established over large swathes of human territory? The answer is partly of course that democracy is certainly not "panacea" and has significant failings. But even so isn't it the most evolved and fairest political system to date?
Many people apparently don't think so. The case has repeatedly made by people as varied as the writers of the Bible and Nietzsche that most people are good followers, they are but "lambs" in need of a good shepherd also known as the uberman. People left to their own devices are irrational, unruly, regressive, directionless - they can even morph into mobs. Strong paternalistic uncompromising leadership is of course what they need - particularly in times of despair this is what people look up to (the Messiah). The desire for a benevolent autocrat, whom people can just follow, without expending much effort or time on deliberation and argument, is thus entrenched in most religions and other significant aspects of human culture.
A relatively new parliamentary democracy, where the common masses are steeped in a largely feudal culture, and the educated elite are untrustworthy of their fellow citizens' political judgement; one which is repeatedly wracked by systemic problems of inefficiency, nepotism and corruption, is of course a fertile breeding ground of such fantasies of "benevolent dictatorship". Welcome to India. This fantasy permeates all strands of political thought in India. Political leaders have their own personality cults, even their family legacies, quite after the fashion of monarchs and their dynastic lineages. The far right wants some kind of Utopia, the Ram rajya of yore. The far left wants a Maoist revolution. They all have a fetish for autocratic leaders. Even the educated middle-class, whom you would expect to be staunchly behind democracy, will at times express this longing for a strong leader "who gets things done" especially when a "coalition" of parties at the helm of government would fail to come to any kind of consensus about anything. No wonder, so many people fondly recollect Indira Gandhi, the "strong leader" who gifted India its "Emergency", the only period when India's democracy seemed to be critically threatened.
Many people apparently don't think so. The case has repeatedly made by people as varied as the writers of the Bible and Nietzsche that most people are good followers, they are but "lambs" in need of a good shepherd also known as the uberman. People left to their own devices are irrational, unruly, regressive, directionless - they can even morph into mobs. Strong paternalistic uncompromising leadership is of course what they need - particularly in times of despair this is what people look up to (the Messiah). The desire for a benevolent autocrat, whom people can just follow, without expending much effort or time on deliberation and argument, is thus entrenched in most religions and other significant aspects of human culture.
A relatively new parliamentary democracy, where the common masses are steeped in a largely feudal culture, and the educated elite are untrustworthy of their fellow citizens' political judgement; one which is repeatedly wracked by systemic problems of inefficiency, nepotism and corruption, is of course a fertile breeding ground of such fantasies of "benevolent dictatorship". Welcome to India. This fantasy permeates all strands of political thought in India. Political leaders have their own personality cults, even their family legacies, quite after the fashion of monarchs and their dynastic lineages. The far right wants some kind of Utopia, the Ram rajya of yore. The far left wants a Maoist revolution. They all have a fetish for autocratic leaders. Even the educated middle-class, whom you would expect to be staunchly behind democracy, will at times express this longing for a strong leader "who gets things done" especially when a "coalition" of parties at the helm of government would fail to come to any kind of consensus about anything. No wonder, so many people fondly recollect Indira Gandhi, the "strong leader" who gifted India its "Emergency", the only period when India's democracy seemed to be critically threatened.
Quite so often, a member of the Indian intelligentsia, will argue that democracy cannot really work in the same way in a third world developing nation, where so many people live in poverty and ignorance, as it does in the West. The masses, he would say, are not educated or aware enough, to make the correct political choices. A strong leader they can understand, relate to and idolize on the other hand may be much more effective in addressing their problems. They are the ones who would like to be guided and not the ones contributing to the decision-making process. India's extremely detailed Constitution may make all the necessary provisions and have all the checks and balances and be an excellent exercise in political theory, but this is not how the majority of Indians work. This is why our judiciary and legislative are stuck in quibbling, and very little tends to get done. How much simpler and more effective would be if a great and well-intentioned leader with a personality to command his people's allegiance came along and took intuitive bold decisions that wouldn't be judged, even against the Constitution? This sort of thinking makes him more susceptible to authoritarian ideologies as well, which depending on his personal predilections could be the far right or the far left, ideologies which he feels would get things done once and for all- this way or that. It is a desperate measure but then desperate situations call for desperate measures.
Only this member of the Indian intelligentsia is a very confused person. He is only half-serious about this benevolent autocrat deal. At some level, he accepts democracy, to be a cluttered and clumsy, but ultimately inevitable fate of Indian politics. This is what he has grown up with and the prospect of anything vastly different makes him insecure. But the fantasies do not abate. This is where Anna Hazare and his Jan Lokpal (or superpowerful Ombudsman) come in, who is strong and of unflinching convictions, is someone the average Indian can relate and look up to, who works outside the established political system, but is not really a radical threat to democracy. He promises to get things done (whether for good or for bad there is not really the time to debate) and is of impeccable personal character and integrity.
This last is a very important point in my argument, for we must not forget that personal virtue is a fundamental trait of the benevolent autocrat. Both Lord Rama and King Arthur were such men of impeccable virtue which in itself is seen as almost a sufficient condition for political efficacy. But it isn't really. There is nothing to guarantee that a well-intentioned individual will take the correct practical decisions, that such an individual will not later be corrupted by power. There is no example in history where a dictator has done only good or even overwhelmingly good. There is only legend and propaganda to that effect. Large collections of people are chaotic systems that nobody can program to work in a certain way - so better to leave it to effectively self-organized behavior, which ultimately is an underlying characteristic of democracy.
This last is a very important point in my argument, for we must not forget that personal virtue is a fundamental trait of the benevolent autocrat. Both Lord Rama and King Arthur were such men of impeccable virtue which in itself is seen as almost a sufficient condition for political efficacy. But it isn't really. There is nothing to guarantee that a well-intentioned individual will take the correct practical decisions, that such an individual will not later be corrupted by power. There is no example in history where a dictator has done only good or even overwhelmingly good. There is only legend and propaganda to that effect. Large collections of people are chaotic systems that nobody can program to work in a certain way - so better to leave it to effectively self-organized behavior, which ultimately is an underlying characteristic of democracy.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment