The call for referendums and direct voter input on a host of issues by few political parties raises an important question of relevance of referendums in functioning of the government. Besides anti-corruption, direct democracy has been one of the major planks many political reform movements over the world. It is a old and much-debated concept, even though it not often come into prominence in India . This is primarily due to the big scales involved in India due to its large population and also due to limits imposed by lack of technology. However now that the technology, by the means of mobile phones and internet availability across large sections of the populace looks set to make it feasible soon, it may well be pertinent to analyze other philosophical questions involved.
On the other hand "direct democracy", especially in context of referendums, refers to the practice of taking the will and opinion of people by majority vote at a much larger scale of a country or a state and utilizing this for effective decision making. This has sometimes been resorted to for big decisions at national level e.g. referendum for separation of Quebec in Canada, but seldom for more regular policy decisions and with good reason.
India and most big democracies have chosen to have representative form of democracy which relies on electorally chosen leadership and not electoral decision making. The principles of representative democracy in Indian constitution and direct democracy are hence fundamentally different. Direct democracy expects people to have well formed opinion on a host of issues that are important in their daily lives. For each of these issue people's consent maybe asked for by direct polling, and based on majority view a particular course of action adopted. Since direction on any one issues is necessarily interlinked with direction on many others, people can tend to support mutually contradictory goals in different referendums, since they may often fail to realize the underlying interconnections. This was visible when people voted for free power in Delhi elections, while not considering how incorrect pricing has very adverse impact on availability of electricity as shown in over past several few decades. Likewise poeple would vote for lower taxes at the same time expecting more government spending and social safety nets.
On the other hand representative government expects a single person or party to evolve a coherent set of ideas and policies which taken together intend to fulfill the goal that the electorate has in mind. Since all policies are decided together by a set of specialists with a common ideological leaning, the policies are not expected to be self-contradictory. The policies proposed may or may not appear to fulfill the desired goals, but different parties can propose different set of strategies and compete for voter attention. The voter doesn't chose policies or plans a-la-carte but whole ideologies (coherent set of ideas) which best appeals to him. Even on issues of which he may not have sufficient knowledge, the voter may chose the ideas based on trustworthiness of individuals proposing them and their past record of success. Hence this manner of decision making not only leads to coherence in policy making, it also allows for the voter to entrust decision making for matters involving specialist knowledge he may not possess himself to the people he trusts. Also, any policies or principles involved in governance may require time to show results. Representative democracy gives adequate time for those policies to come to fruition and delays feedback sufficiently to make the feedback meaningful.
To conclude, the two contradictory requirements of close feedback and coherent policy and effective decision making need to be reconciled. Representative democracy is a balance between autocracy without feedback, and direct democracy without coherence and effectiveness. Asking for referendum for each and every policy decision can only lead to chaos, and is unlikely to gain credence despite any current or future technological enablers.
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language."
- Ludwig WittgensteinLet us first start by looking at the often confused concepts of "direct democracy" and somewhat related, though different concept, best called "local self-governance". Local self-governance implies the mode of administration and citizen feedback wherein local communities at village level or block level may be involved in decision making for issue of concern limited to the local community itself. I would circumscribe this concept further by limiting it to areas of administration for which a larger collaboration or impact beyond local-community may not been involved and direct visibility of the activities on ground would be available with the citizens. As a general principle, it is good to decentralize wherever possible, and with this circumscribed definition, I think local-self governance a good idea, which is already partially implemented in villages through Panchayats and in cities through RWA's, though exacts mechanism and workings can be further refined and improved.
On the other hand "direct democracy", especially in context of referendums, refers to the practice of taking the will and opinion of people by majority vote at a much larger scale of a country or a state and utilizing this for effective decision making. This has sometimes been resorted to for big decisions at national level e.g. referendum for separation of Quebec in Canada, but seldom for more regular policy decisions and with good reason.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
- Winston Churchill.Unlike how Indian politicians extol the virtues of democracy and the intelligence of the voter, let us take a considered view of whether democracy in terms of universal adult franchise is the best form of government and, if so, why. There is a view with some people that a benevolent and wise dictator or would be much more effective in ensuring the progress and well-being of a country than any democratic setup can be. Though partly true, this is a simplistic view of things which fails to consider issues of sustainability and feedback. Firstly, there may not be that many certifiably benevolent dictators graciously making themselves available to us. And even fewer among them could be guaranteed to stay benevolent after attaining despotic power which we plan to confer upon them. Secondly, and more importantly any dictator or council of dictators, would lack one key enabling function which makes democratically elected government the only form of government which has consistently succeeded in past century.This is the power of feedback. Feedback to those managing the institution of government from those on whose behalf the institution is managed, is by definition only available in an electoral democracy, and however slow or partial , it is essential for making any government effective.
India and most big democracies have chosen to have representative form of democracy which relies on electorally chosen leadership and not electoral decision making. The principles of representative democracy in Indian constitution and direct democracy are hence fundamentally different. Direct democracy expects people to have well formed opinion on a host of issues that are important in their daily lives. For each of these issue people's consent maybe asked for by direct polling, and based on majority view a particular course of action adopted. Since direction on any one issues is necessarily interlinked with direction on many others, people can tend to support mutually contradictory goals in different referendums, since they may often fail to realize the underlying interconnections. This was visible when people voted for free power in Delhi elections, while not considering how incorrect pricing has very adverse impact on availability of electricity as shown in over past several few decades. Likewise poeple would vote for lower taxes at the same time expecting more government spending and social safety nets.
On the other hand representative government expects a single person or party to evolve a coherent set of ideas and policies which taken together intend to fulfill the goal that the electorate has in mind. Since all policies are decided together by a set of specialists with a common ideological leaning, the policies are not expected to be self-contradictory. The policies proposed may or may not appear to fulfill the desired goals, but different parties can propose different set of strategies and compete for voter attention. The voter doesn't chose policies or plans a-la-carte but whole ideologies (coherent set of ideas) which best appeals to him. Even on issues of which he may not have sufficient knowledge, the voter may chose the ideas based on trustworthiness of individuals proposing them and their past record of success. Hence this manner of decision making not only leads to coherence in policy making, it also allows for the voter to entrust decision making for matters involving specialist knowledge he may not possess himself to the people he trusts. Also, any policies or principles involved in governance may require time to show results. Representative democracy gives adequate time for those policies to come to fruition and delays feedback sufficiently to make the feedback meaningful.
"Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus."
- Martin Luther KingLastly, the idea of leadership in electoral democracy is not only about following public opinion but molding public opinion. The public is of-course free to get convinced or otherwise. A leader with no conviction of his own, except for following majority public opinion, is not a leader in true sense of the word. The progressive and reformist Hindu Code Bills would never have been passed if Nehru and Ambedkar had only cared for Public Opinion. Nor would the 1990s reforms by Narsimha Rao Government have taken place.
To conclude, the two contradictory requirements of close feedback and coherent policy and effective decision making need to be reconciled. Representative democracy is a balance between autocracy without feedback, and direct democracy without coherence and effectiveness. Asking for referendum for each and every policy decision can only lead to chaos, and is unlikely to gain credence despite any current or future technological enablers.
No comments:
Post a Comment