Mediaboss Marketing

The last four years, and particularly the last few months, in which COVID-19 has plagued our country and caused the death of 300,000 of our citizens, has at best generated serious questions about our federal governments ability to protect its citizens as well as its ability to institutionally respect and respond to the will of the huge majority of the people they were elected to represent.

The last year in particular, with the rise of Black Lives Matter movement and the response to it from the far right in the form of self-styled and armed military in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic, has lowered even further the peoples confidence in their federal government.

This confluence of events and conflicting cultures and values put enough fear into most Republican and some Democratic U.S. senators and members of Congress who perceive their states voters to be so estranged from their own federal government that they view it as almost an alien force seeking to deprive them of fundamental freedoms by surveillance, the collection of personal information, and ultimately the confiscation of their guns. That fear caused these less than courageous elected officials to shift into survival mode to protect their elective offices from their own angry and as these politicians see them irrational constituents.

That this distortion of the facts could be used to intimidate enough U.S. senators and probably more than enough members of the U.S. House of Representatives to defeat the recent effort to assist constituents who needed help coping with the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was tragically illustrated during the last six weeks. The balance of members needed to rationally address the common needs of their constituents were missing in action.

The explanation of this unfortunate reality is that the word balance is not in the vocabulary of either the extreme right or the extreme left. Their failure to understand its virtue in a representative democracy has begun to manifest itself in the dysfunction of some of the important institutions of our federal government and to a lesser extent so far, in some of our states.

If balance was sufficiently valued in our politics, state legislatures would cede or delegate the power to reapportion and shape congressional and state legislative districts to independent nonpartisan commissions whose only charge would be to draw constitutionally sound districts, which to the extent possible preserved communities within the district and were coherent and rational geographically and politically.

This would minimize or halt the current practice of designing districts to protect incumbent legislators while maximizing the number and power of the political party in power at the time. It would also cause incumbent office holders and candidates to be more concerned about being responsive to the interests of complete and diverse communities and the informed political center of their districts rather than the extreme left or right, which currently are concentrated in their geographically contorted districts to ensure their reelection.

Putting a greater value on balance in our politics would also compel our U.S. senators to return the use of the filibuster to its traditional role as a restraint on the untrammeled rule of the majority. That would mean that it would always be a speaking filibuster, which would end when those participating got tired of talking or when 60 members voted to stop listening and talking.

It would also end the unacknowledged but real obstruction of legislation if the measure got any less than 60 votes. A majority would pass the bill and/or confirm the appointee or judge unless the Constitution or a specific rule applying to that legislation or appointment required otherwise.

Finally, after the U.S. Senate in the name of needed balance restored the filibuster to its traditional role and use in that hallowed chamber, the House of Representatives would in a burst of reciprocity and recognition of the need for balance abandon what has become known as the Hastert Rule. The Hastert Rule, named after former Speaker of the House of Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), mandates that no legislation will be brought up for a vote by the full House if it does not have the support of a majority party in the House.

This practice, which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or any statute, effectively deprives all of the people who voted for and elected representatives who are not members of the majority party in the House of their right to vote on legislation that has been filed for consideration by the full House.

This practice has at times been used by both parties. The only rationale articulated for its use is to perpetuate the power of the majority party. Periodically it is abandoned for other overriding political reasons. When it is, good things tend to happen, such as the debt limit being raised to ensure the full faith and credit of the United States or relief is provided to victims of natural disasters.

All of these practices are usually defended as institutional prerogatives. Clearly if these institutional prerogatives have any value, it is less than the value of fundamental fairness, i.e. due process, that the exercise of these prerogatives denies to those citizens who voted for their member of Congress without being informed that their right to vote on legislation would be conditioned on their political party registration. Notwithstanding this, anyone who suggests that these practices be relegated to the dustbin of history runs the risk of being characterized as insensitive to the role of the institution itself.

For this reason, this writers response to those who argue that these practices are necessary to the preservation of the institutional integrity and powers of the Congress of the United States is to suggest that those who say that confuse Congresss prerogatives with their personal perks and that their confusion may be fatal to our democracy.

The inability to commit oneself to or believe in anything that transcends ones private interests leads to a weakening of commitment to community and to self-absorption that is sometimes called narcissism, the philosopher William M. Sullivan wrote. The alternative, Sullivan said, is a return to the ideals of loyalty and service based on Trust and Commitment.

It is that alternative that we should demand from our elected officials and candidates for public office, and the way they can demonstrate that they deserve our trust and loyalty is to end the current practices of legislative redistricting, by the legislature support modification of the filibuster and abolition of the Hastert Rule.

These actions would provide our citizens once again with the confidence that their voices can and will be heard and that public engagement is worth their time and effort. They are way overdue but sadly not forthcoming.

STEVEN I. PLATT

The writer is a Senior Circuit Court Judge.

Read the rest here:
Judge Steven Platt: Balance Is the Key to Reviving Our Democracy - Josh Kurtz

Now that the election is over, everyone in the Biden coalition is jockeying for a position and trying to get their people in place and their issues on the agenda. The Congressional Black Caucus pushed for a black secretary of defense. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus got its wish for Hispanic heads of homeland security and health and human services. Bernie Sanders wants to be secretary of labor.

Its now clear that every part of the Biden coalition was absolutely necessary to his victory, especially in swing states. And that includes Never Trumpers. In Wisconsin, to take just one example, Never Trump voters egged on by groups like Republican Voters Against Trump and the Lincoln Project split the ticket and 64,000 voted for Biden, a number three times larger than Bidens margin of victory. Nor are Never Trumpers people who jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute. Many were supporting Joe Biden even before he decided to run and that support never wavered.

While Never Trumpers have as legitimate a claim on the spoils of victory as anyone else, what do they want? You might be surprised.

On June 11, 2019, Joe Biden gave a speech in Iowa where he said:

Everywhere you turn, Trump is tearing down the guardrails of democracy. . . . What hes doing isnt your typical battle between two co-equal branches of government. He is deliberately and completely ignoring the legitimate authority of the Congress . . . In 2020, we not only have to repudiate Donald Trumps policies and valueswe have to clearly and firmly reject his view of the presidency. . . . Were at a moment when we need to re-set constitutional norms in this country. The presidency is not without limits. The Congress is a co-equal branch of government.

Never Trumpers dont necessarily want our people in positions of power. We dont want special favors from a grateful administration. Never Trumpers want Joe Biden to do something he has already promised to do: rebuild and strengthen the guardrails of democracy.

The Guardrails of Democracy project has identified dozens of these kinds of reforms that need to be implemented: fixing the Vacancies Act, updating the Electoral Count Act, revamping the system under which presidential emergencies are declared and managed, etc. None of these reforms is partisan. They are all fixes that will be broadly supported by anyone, Democrat or Republican, conservative or progressive, who is not a fan of authoritarianism. While there may be vigorous debates on how best to implement these reforms, there is broad consensus that these reforms should be implemented. We can argue about how, precisely, we ought to amend the Constitution to prevent self-pardons, but does anyone really think presidents should be allowed to pardon themselves?

Rebuilding the guardrails of democracy needs to be one of the defining themes of Joe Bidens presidency. Just because these reforms will have broad support doesnt mean that implementing them will be easy. The devil is in the details and working out those details and getting all the necessary legislation passed will require sustained attention and effort. Our system of checks and balances has been drifting for decades as Congress ceded more and more power to the executive. Now Donald Trump has spent four years actively damaging the fabric of American democracy. Correcting that drift, fixing what he broke, and strengthening our institutions to handle the next wannabe autocrat isnt something you can do with a single piece of legislation.

Ideally, President Biden would create a small Office of Legislative and Constitutional Reform specifically tasked with developing these reforms and getting them passed through Congress. Perhaps it should be led by a Never Trump Republican, since we have been sounding the alarm about these issues for the last four years. But the important thing isnt who does the work but that the work gets done.

Never Trumpers didnt spend four-plus years trashing their careers and alienating their friends because we didnt like Trumps style. We opposed Trump because we recognized that what he stood for is an existential threat to the American experiment in constitutional democracy. While Trump will be leaving on January 20, the threat remains.

Donald Trump has opened a portal to another political dimension and we can now expect other Trump-like creatures to cross into our universe. If Donald Trump could figure out a way to do it, he would happily ignore the Constitution, ignore the laws, subvert our elections, and install himself as president for at least another four years. If we have avoided autocracy this time its only because the current president isnt competent enough or intelligent enough to pull it off. But we cant expect to be as lucky next time.

What do Never Trumpers want from President Biden? We want him to fulfill his promise, reinvigorate our system of checks and balances, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. If President Biden is looking for a theme that will heal our divisions and unite the country, he isnt going to do better than that.

The rest is here:
Strengthen the Guardrails of Democracy - The Bulwark

I read with dismay that our attorney general joined the Texas election lawsuit that seeks to overturn the presidential election.

Not only this was a wild goose chase that went nowhere, but also a waste of our taxpayer money. In addition, the suit also sets a dangerous precedent to our democracy, and if it had succeeded, then anyone losing any election would feel free to sue to get that election overturned.

Also, any state not happy with the results of elections in other states would then sue to get them overturned. Finally, based on the twisted logic of the Texas lawsuit, then Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia can come up with a suit of their own, seeking to overturn Louisiana, Florida, Texas, etc., elections declaring them fraudulent.

By joining the lawsuit Jeff Landry did the nation and the state a disservice. I believe that as our attorney general he has many more important things to do than waste time pursuing a chimera that does not have anything to do with our state. If his calling is playing politics, he should resign and let somebody else do his job and stop wasting our time and money.

I am not a Republican nor I am a Democrat. I am just a citizen worried about what is happening to our democracy.

CARLOS CANAS

systems engineer

Marrero

Read the original here:
Letters: Landry involvement in Texas suit unnecessary, harmful to democracy - The Advocate

Regardless of their political persuasion, astute observers of world politics almost unanimously agree that democracy and democratic institutions across the globe are under an eclipse. In countries as disparate as the Philippines, Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Brazil, Tajikistan, China, Russia, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia, one sees the attenuation of power-sharing institutions, lack of accountability, rampant electoral malpractices, the rising tide of corruption and cronyism, and systematic attempts to squelch dissent. That established democracies like the United States, India and the United Kingdom are also not immune to this malaise only underscores its severity.

The parlous state of democracy has garnered considerable scholarly attention. Some academics posit that democracy is going through a mid-life crisis. Others, mainly from China, maintain that Western democracy, having outlived its utility, is showing signs of decay. Yet others blame populism for delivering a knockout blow to democracy.

Democratic governance appears to have failed to empower people, uphold their dignity, and enhance their life chances. Equally disconcerting, the decline of Western democracies like the United States coincides with the ascent of China, universally denounced as a totalitarian state. Though these baffling phenomena have enormous implications for both theory and praxis, coming to terms with them requires conceptual clarity, foremost.

The New Despotism by John Keane, Harvard University Press.

In his latest book The New Despotism, published by Harvard University Press, John Keane, political theorist and renown scholar of democracy, offers a seminal analysis of the aberrations of democracy and the rise of what he calls the new despotism. He has spent decades tracking the trajectory of democracy across the globe and mapping the changes it has undergone in different settings.

Drawing on his sustained engagement with democratic institutions, Keane delineates the contours of contemporary changes in a compelling manner. Subverting received scholarly wisdom that depicts the dystopian anomalies of democracy as authoritarianism, populism, totalitarianism, or dictatorship, he characterises them as the new despotism. He characterises them as the new despotism. The linchpin of this novel form of despotism, Keane maintains, is voluntary servitude.

New despotism, as a concept, will make little sense unless we disabuse ourselves of our traditional notion of despotism as a synonym for repression and raw force. Just as vital is to stay away from dog-tired expressions like tyranny or autocracy. Keane clarifies that the Socratic notion of tyranny as an unjust type of rule by a strongman consumed by lawless desires and ruling through fraud and force cannot fully account for the nuances of the new despotism.

Similarly, albeit tempting, labelling leaders like Rodrigo Duterte, Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin as authoritarian, though partially correct, mischaracterises the multifarious strategies through which they rule.

For instance, unlike dictators like Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Stalin, present-day rulers are not always heavy-handed and crude. Instead, they are masters of deception and seduction who use an amalgam of artifices to secure the volitional obedience of their subjects. Since conventional terms have limited explanatory potential, Keane propounds an avant-garde expression: new despotism.

Features of new despotism

According to Keane, new despotism is a phantom democracy, a new type of pseudo-democratic government led by rulers skilled in the arts of manipulating and meddling with peoples lives, marshalling their support, and winning their conformity. It operates in insidious ways by ostensibly embracing the trappings of democratic polities. Despots outwardly affirm their allegiance to the rule of law, procedures and transparency. Yet, they excel in exploiting the law to frustrate the rule of law.

Keane points out that new despotisms have little faith in democracy and no patience for its niceties. Instead, they exercise power through trusted vassals and patron-client networks. He rightly argues that the asymmetries of predatory power arise from vertically arranged pyramids of privilege and injustice.

Also read:Self-Absorbed, Uncaring, Incompetent: COVID Has Exposed Populist Leaders for What They Are

As big business states, new despotisms are plutocracies whose main goal is to regulate regimes of accumulation. They privatise profits and nationalise costs by offering subsidies to corporate tycoons through loans from state-owned banks, giving them an unfair competitive edge. In several instances, there is no obligation to repay; these debts are written off as non-performing assets, a sleight-of-hand routinely practiced in India with consummate ease.

Keane rightly, therefore, describes the new despotisms as larcenous states. Yet, unlike their authoritarian predecessors, they cover their tracks carefully. While assiduously promoting big business, they also cultivate petty capitalism small and medium enterprises to burnish their credentials as creators of a level playing field. Nothing, however, can camouflage their theft. For example, criminal elements control about 25% of Russias gross national income. Keane is thus spot on in portraying new despotisms as wealth creation and protection rackets for the rich.

Why do new despotisms flourish?

A quintessential feature of new despotism is that it flourishes despite creating unprecedented levels of precarity for vast swathes of the populace. With its remarkable capacity for metastasis, it masquerades as an efficient form of government, far superior to democracy.

While assiduously promoting big business, the new despots also cultivate petty capitalism small and medium enterprises to burnish their credentials as creators of a level playing field. Photo: johnhain /Pixabay/ Public Domain

Keane explains this paradox by noting two basic facts. First, new despotism is not monocausal; it emerges from the confluence of several factors such as historical traditions, economic forces, and technological advances.

Second, as he pithily points out: no despotism is fully despotic. New despotism thrives by cultivating submission through bait and switch methods. Unlike 20th century authoritarianism, it does not resort to denial and repression. Alternatively, it seeks to beguile and bewitch its subjects into accepting despotic governance.

Keane outlines several ruses despots deploy to win the acquiescence of their subjects. New despotism thrives primarily by promoting hedonism, hyper consumerism, and embourgeoisment. It seduces through sops such as government handouts, token welfare programmes, gala events and dazzling construction projects.

Right after the 2011 Arab uprisings, all despotic regimes in the region hiked welfare payments to obviate potential rebellions. Saudi Arabia has earned mass approbation by erecting a $500 billion city called Neom, an innovation hub for engineering firms.

To complement these contrived spectacles, new despotisms manufacture a euphoric rhetoric, a grandiose vision that is awe-inspiring enough to make people endure present hardships. Keane perceptively notes that China habitually invokes fantasies like harmonious society, socialism with Chinese characteristics, and ancient Chinese civilisation. These ersatz discourses, coupled with banal preoccupations like shopping, create quiet subservience, serve as the oxygen of despotic regimes.

Keane remarks that the middle class fickle pragmatists with a yearning for the good life, fun, stability, tough leadership, and top-down rule takes this amenability a notch higher and becomes ferociously loyal to the system.

Also read:We Are Witnessing the Revolt of the Elites

Aside from finessing public perception, new despots leverage inherited strengths local customs, legacy institutions, and so on to their advantage. Keane cites the example of Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus, who deftly appropriated the intelligence apparatus of the former Communist regime. Singapore, too, used the Westminster model to build a one-party state.

Another common trait of despots is their implacable hostility to dissent, exemplified by the draconian measures of states like Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan and China. Along with neutralising opposition, despots also sedulously guard their citadels, letting in just their trusted cronies and family members. Keane argues that this reliance on kinship networks, loyalists, and factotums is inevitable because life at the top is reptilian and power has to be tightly regulated and carefully guarded.

Calibrated coercion and measured use of violence

As closed systems, new despotisms are vulnerable to palace intrigues and popular revolts. Yet, departing from the practice of earlier dictatorial regimes, they are circumspect in using violence, reserving it only for intractable situations. New despotisms are police states with a difference. They believe, as Keane puts it, in calibrated coercion. Since blanket use of force can alienate, they reserve their velvet fists for selective targets. They can, thus, be humane and civilised despite unleashing their secret police and surveillance machinery against dissidents.

This calculated approach is in tandem with the phantasmal rule of law favoured by despotic states. Keane acutely observes that new despotisms are a mishmash of legalisation and lawlessness. Their preference is for ruling through law. Organised lawlessness comes naturally to them. Small wonder new despotism embraces democratic processes, reposes faith in elections, and launches anti-corruption drives. The luster of lawfulness covers a multitude of sins.

File photo of people standing on a Turkish army tank in Ankara, Turkey, July 16, 2016 during a failed coup. Photo: Reuters/Tumay Berkin

The veneer of legality, however, does not always guarantee peace. Managing popular expectations can be treacherous. If frequent use of violence is not an option, what steps do new despotisms take to ensure continuing compliance with their diktats? They accomplish this objective by lodging themselves in the minds of their subjects through elaborate theatrics.

Despots realise that losing common touch is fatal for arbitrary rule. Hence, they spare no effort to nurture a folksy image and launch people-friendly events. Consider this: the government of the United Arab Emirates has launched a national happiness and positivity programme and set up councils for happiness to promote happiness among its citizens. The overarching goal is to ensure that citizens are dutiful, quiet, and wedded to the endless pursuit of trivial pleasures.

Also read:The US Led Liberal International Order Is in Crisis

Unfortunately, however, state-induced joy and passivity often conflict with the brutal realities of everyday life. Quotidian struggles generate dissatisfaction. Keane states that the elites neutralise disaffection by allowing people to bellyache and vent their concerns. Rather than cracking down on critics, new despotisms encourage impotent grumbling. They can, then, flaunt their commitment to free speech and simultaneously ensure that citizens sense of agency is not eviscerated.

The Chinese government, for example, permits disgruntled citizens to file electronic complaints and virtual petitions on online fora exposing corrupt officials. Though ground realities barely change, squawking offers enormous psychic comfort. New despotisms prefer grumblers because they are gullible agents of blind conformity.

New despotism and media power

A singular strength of the new despotism is its sophisticated analysis of the media power in nourishing despotism. Keane identifies communicative abundance the expansion of different media, particularly social media as a significant driver of new despotism.In his view, the growth of media outlets aids despots in three ways.

First, a media-saturated environment enables despots to be heard and seen all the time. This high visibility aids indoctrination and provides rulers with additional sources of legitimacy. They use media to promote a new type of vaudeville government that valorises national pride, sovereignty and so on through carnivalesque shows, programmes, and celebrations.

Slick media management obliterates the failures of governance and creates avenues for business-like patter about stability and growth. Second, communicative abundance spurs the governments ability to gaslight: to confuse, disorient, and destabilise people.

Also read:UnderstandingRight-Wing Resurgence in the US and India

Keane defines gaslighting as the organised effort to mess with subjects identities, to deploy entertainment, conflicting stories, lies, bullshit, and silence for the purpose of sowing seeds of confusion among subjects in order to control them fully and durably. The point is to drown subjects in shit, to flood their lives with gaseous excrement. Third, through a judicious blend of relentless brainwashing and gaslighting, new despots acquire a monopoly over all forms of political discourse.

Formidable as these advantages are, they are not unalloyed blessings. Keane also underscores the promiscuous nature of the mass media and their subversive potential. Anticipating the impending threat of media-driven insurrection, new rulers detest journalists. If they cannot be bought, media professionals are persecuted. Additionally, the state tries to preempt digital mutinies through an extensive programme of surveillance. The slightest whiff of opposition incurs savage reprisal, particularly in places like China, Turkey, and Azerbaijan.

Democracy and new despotism

Of all the infernal characteristics of new despotism, the most egregious one is that it battens on support from democratic regimes. Keane offers two perceptive observations about the symbiotic relationship between the two.

First, he discusses the various ways in which democracy aids new despotism and profits from doing so. Countries like the United States and Britain have partnership in trade, technology and arms sales with despotic regimes. In fact, all advanced nations conclude trade deals, joint business ventures, and partnerships with despots with no compunctions.

Second, given the umbilical connection between democracy and despotism, Keane avers that we no longer live in a world that can be neatly divided into democracies and despotisms. Relatedly, the notion that an unsullied Atlantic-style liberal democracy is the gold standard for the world has become untenable. New despotism is ubiquitous; it thrives in the womb of democracies and authoritarian regimes alike.

An umbilical connection between democracy and despotism has emerged, as we no longer live in a world that can be neatly divided into democracies and despotisms. File photo of people casting their ballots for the US presidential elections in Ann Arbor, Michigan, US, September 24, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Emily Elconin/File Photo

As far back as 1835, in his book Democracy in America, political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville first articulated the notion that democracy and despotism are not discrete, that they must be viewed as lying along a continuum. He argued that it was not tyranny that threatened democracy but an attractive form of democratic despotism backed by a bourgeoisie driven by crass individualism and materialism.

Keane provides a sumptuous historical account of how this incipient idea of despotism morphed into the theory of Oriental despotism, an ideology that justified European colonialism. Backed by official patronage, this thinking held sway till the late 19thcentury when sociologist Emile Durkheim finally debunked it. Keane justifies reviving this long-forgotten idea for three reasons.

First, he thinks despotism has a powerful ethical sting in its tail that can alert us to its pernicious consequences. Second, it is a foghorn concept, an early warning detector about arbitrary power. Third, despotism is a precautionary concept that enables us to figure out its long-term effects. Keane, thus, revivifies a potent idea by tracing its ramifications.

Tackling new despotism: Issues and strategies

The new despotism is an intellectual tour de force because it provides a coherent framework for making sense of apparently disjointed developments. Using examples from across the globe, Keane proves that new despotism is not a frozen form of power, instead, it has a kaleidoscopic quality that can fool an unsuspecting observer.

Interrogating received wisdom, he shows that it is wrong to assume that, like authoritarianism, new despotism is devoid of democracy. Its appeal lies in its ability to be democratic and pro-people in order to exact voluntary servitude. New despotism is an exceptional form of power because it gently coaxes people to choose servitude. In Keanes elegant expression, people dont lose their liberty; they win their enslavement.

On the question of combating new despotism, Keane rejects violence, arguing that despotic states have a colossal capacity for retaliation. He surveys a slew of options independently monitored elections, technological blockades, trade and tariff embargos, consumer boycotts, and so on and maintains that their efficacy is limited. New despotism is a resilient form of domination with recombinant qualities. It is nimble and capable of coping with crises. Despotic regimes like China and Vietnam have proven their ability to outperform Western democracies.

Keane contends that despotism derives its power from its subjects. Withholding this power collectively will deflate despotism. Keane pins his hopes on movements like the 2014 umbrella revolution in Hong Kong and suggests that they should be replicated elsewhere.

He also advocates defending power-sharing institutions and civil society associations. Keane thinks the absence of monitory democracy, the real threat of digital storms, and the sheer hubris of despots could be their undoing.

Ultimately, what will hasten their demise is our collective resolve to not participate in voluntary servitude. Since most of us cannot afford to make this choice, new despotisms will not disappear soon. Keane, therefore, fears that our democracies will ineluctably metamorphose into proto-despotisms in the coming decades.

Cogently argued and replete with apposite examples, Keane makes a forceful case for reexamining our thoughts about despotism. His book is a happy blend of prodigious scholarship, a riveting style, and original ideas. Such books are rare these days.

Badrinath Rao is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Asian Studies at Kettering University in Flint, Michigan, in the United States. He is also a practising attorney in the US.

More here:
With the Breakdown of Democracy Comes the Rise of 'New Despotism' Globally - The Wire

Lets set aside for the time being what NITI Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant meant when he said we are too much of a democracy. He has already clarified it in an article where he argues that he was misunderstood. He claims all he actually wanted to say was Indias reforms cant move at the same speed as Chinas because we are too much of a democracy. Perhaps he has a point there.

The real question however is not whether we believe Kant. Many think he is playing cats paw for the regime, trying to test out an argument for curbing or, to be more accurate, further curbing our democratic rights in return for what is often described as development. In todays bureaucratese that could well be synonymous with reforms.

It may be best therefore to first get our definitions right. What is this development we keep hearing about and how does it impact you and me? For the past six years we have often heard this word being bandied around. But when it actually comes to seeing it in action, there has been very little that has impacted your life and mine. Surely demonetisation was not development. Nor was the imposition of a complex GST regime. And surely not even the most ardent admirers of the BJP would describe the Ram temple as development. Nor the monstrous statue of Sardar Patel.

What is development then? The bullet train to Ahmedabad? The Central Vista project to build a new triangular shaped parliament building to replace the current one, a new residence for the prime minister and the vice president, and a few more statues to honour leaders that this regime feels are neglected by history? Or is it this new law to bring OTT services under the I&B ministry? Or the three new farm laws that farmers across the nation are protesting so vigorously against?

Or would you call the love jihad law in BJP-ruled states, development? Or the law against cattle slaughter and consumption of beef? Most of us, apart from the bhakts, are a bit confused. We hear so much talk about development but what we see are only confused, random acts of divisiveness? Yet, despite that, the BJP keeps winning elections. So clearly theres something they are doing right. Maybe its the Modi magic. Or, more likely, its their ability to cannily tap into the majoritarian mindset. So much so that I see the Congress trying to emulate that as well. The young Gandhis have by now perfected the fine art of visiting temples at election time. Does it mean they are also rooting for development?

Frankly, I am happy to concede I dont understand this. I grew up in a India where everyone was dissatisfied with the government, Congress in those days. Yet the khadi-caps managed to hang on to power for six decades. They kept inventing new slogans to win elections. From Jai Jawan Jai Kisan in 1965 to Garibi Hatao in 1971. But the promises they made remained largely unfulfilled. Till Manmohan Singh as finance minister initiated historic economic reforms in 1991. That was the first real step towards changing India.

Unfortunately, it was under the same Manmohan Singh, this time as prime minister, that the Congress saw its demise. If you ignore all the fake statistics that are constantly thrown at us, you will find UPA2 did not do badly on economic parameters. It was the scams that killed it. People were just tired of hearing about scams. And they thought that if they voted out the Congress, Modi would bring a new agenda to Indian politics, an agenda for change. It was not development they voted for. They voted for change. Change in the quality of politics.

Has that happened? Thats the real question. Not how much democracy India needs. India needs change and only greater democracy can make that happen. China is the wrong role model. Modi knows that, which is why the first overture he made was to Japan. Japan is the best example of growth and prosperity after the terrible devastation it faced in the War. Through sheer grit, it rediscovered its mojo in record time keeping every democratic institution alive, in fact further empowering them. Today its economy competes with the best in the world without taking the short cuts China does.

We are friends today with the US and Japan and the Quad includes Australia too. These are fine examples of democracy at work. Yet, funnily, when it comes to economic growth, we compare ourselves only to China which is way ahead of us in economic growth but lags way behind in nurturing democratic institutions. And we all know, which is more important.

Today our farmers are angry. Our students are unhappy. The minorities one out of every five Indians are losing faith. Our workers are rudderless. Our jobless youth are in distress. Recession stares us in the face. This is the time for consensus. Every stakeholder in the economy must be convinced of every reform. Instead, we are obsessing over all the wrong things at a wrong time in history. And no, Mr Kant, there can never be too much of democracy. Democracy is what defines our identity, has built our character, and has the potential to make us the global super power we want to be. Just get out of our way and watch where we can take this nation.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Here is the original post:
How much is too much democracy? - The Times of India Blog