Reading Raghav Bahl’s book
‘Superpower The Amazing Race Between India’s Tortoise & China’s Hare’ has compelled
me to ask a question- Can political freedoms be cited as an excuse for slow
progress, poor governance, hunger & deprivation? The theoretical logic says
that democracies are better than autocracies/totalitarian states when it comes
to sustainability, absorbing shocks, distributing benefits and most importantly
empowering individuals. But does political freedom form a better criterion to
measure the empowerment of an individual? Is it that an individual cannot
remain happy/satisfied without political freedoms even if he is given
reasonable monetary & material rewards? Is there no impact of socialization
under a particular kind of rule? Would a hungry person not trade off his right
to exercise choice in political decision making for a predictable supply of
food? Which one ensures justice to an individual- electing a political
representative who deprives him of basic necessities OR being ruled by a self-appointed
ruler who meets all basic needs? Will the individual always prefer to rule in
hell rather than serve in heaven? In many democracies politics has become a
sort of ‘hate word’ and many people do not take keen interest in day to day
political decision making (though they may be casting votes, following the
events & expressing their choices). Many times, the practice of forming up
and mobilizing public opinion compels political parties to deliberately misinterpret
facts & figures; to take sides more closer to ideology than reason and to
magnify the little while belittling the magnanimous. Though all this politics(luring,
lobbying, convincing etc) has become part of daily social life in democratic societies
especially in western countries, it’s difficult to argue that an individual who
has had no exposure to these democratic processes will find it necessary. He
may even find democracy very chaotic, confusing and destabilizing. And what if
this attitude is mixed with moderately good governance and nationalist
propaganda supporting existing political structure? Those (un)wishful thinkers
and democracy enthusiasts who believe that China’s society will eventually
adopt democracy and political freedoms need to think again. They argue that
economic freedoms and material growth cannot continue unabated without creating
a ripple effect on political sphere. It holds true when the society has enjoyed
the freedoms at some point of time and has lost them under the current regime/system
e.g. British Rule had brought partial democracy by establishing semi-democratic
institutions & giving media freedoms which convinced its nationalist
leaders about the benefits of meaningful democracy and they created a mass
movement demanding the same. Each set of reforms, be it in 1909, 1919 or 1935
brought incremental democratization and politicization of Indian people. This
was followed with strong promotion of democracy by all major nationalist
leaders and free press. Hence, the people in India had had fair deal of
experience of meaningful democracy when emergency was imposed by the then PM
Indira Gandhi in 1976. Thus, when the curbs on political freedoms started
becoming rule rather than a rarity (during emergency period), the people
started feeling suffocated and they threw Indira government out of power in
next elections. Chinese society has not had any such experience of true
democracy at any time in its history. It has never been given political
freedoms which have been taken away later on. Its people have long remained
under authoritarian rule. Before 1911, it was Qing Dynasty, then Civil war
between Sun-yat-sen & Mao’s forces and after 1949, under Communist Party of
China led by Mao-tse-tung, Deng Xiaoping & the likes. A society cannot be
expected to revolt for something which it has never experienced. The era of globalization
means that the world is more and more inter connected and voices of pain and
injustice can spread very fast and mould public opinion. But China’s ruling
party seems to be aware of all this. It is wary of most feeble of the voices
rising against its rule. It has adopted censorship & hard handedness on one
hand and is improving governance on the other (carrot and stick policy) so that
people are getting a fairer deal today than before. Moreover, China has given
to its people better infrastructure and lifted its people through nearly all
the social/prosperity indicators. It has fought hunger and poverty faster than
any country in the world. Yes, there is opposition against Chinese government’s
forceful land acquisition, crony capitalism and corruption. But, comparing this
to India (which lags far behind across almost all economic/social indicators),
I ask myself have we given a better deal to our people. Anyone from India will
accept that corruption at the lowest levels hurts the most deprived the most.
Hunger, poverty, roads, railways, etc everything has been politicized but
ironically, politicization has resulted in slower action and redressal of
grievances. We remain stuck at decisions for longer than their utility, our
implementation record is pathetic and our elected leaders care more about their
vested interests. We are facing insurgencies & Maoist problem which are at
least partially attributable to our inability to provide basic necessities to
our people. Rather than waiting for China’s fall (it’s not going to happen
soon), I think we should introspect and try to ensure that our own ship of
democracy sails smooth. Then only, we can set example for Chinese or anyone. Meaningful
democracy means taking everyone along but it does not mean that in doing so you
can miss the train of development again and again.
