Retributions  

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

So, what is the alternative?

The ”democracy worshippers at INI” argues Gaurav ignore its weaknesses and hype its virtues. More substantially, he further argues that they ignore that democracy can never deliver good public policy without what he calls ”adaptors”–essentially a vibrant civil society and institutional framework.

At its most basic, this is a classic strawman argument. If we believed–and I presumptively speak for INI here–that democracy could flourish without an institutional framework then INI would it self become meaningless. We could simply replace the INI homepage with a ‘’support democracy” banner and consider our job done. Because we recognize the importance of institutions and a vibrant civil society, we have attempted to provide a platform–howsoever minor–for a discussion on public policy.

Now, it does not follow that Gaurav is incorrect. He is quite right that democracy cannot function in a vacuum. Arguably, a system which, at least, theoretically, relies on a systematic approach and permanent public interest requires far stronger back-end support than a system reliant exclusively on the idiosyncrasies of a presumably public spirited dictator.

Where we differ from Gaurav however is that he assumes the necessity of their existence as a priori for democracy to flourish. Apart from that fact this does not answer the obvious query–pray, where would such institutions spring from–we would argue that it is democracy which facilitates the development of public institutions.

How? One would be obviously the power of the vote which can, at least theoretically, drive public policy. It is true, no doubt, that voters can give mixed signals or be driven by concerns extraneous and even antagonist to good public policy. Nevertheless, it is impossible to see how in absence of such signals from voters, public policy would be guided by anything except individual aggrandizement. It is precisely why dictatorships have faltered–even when led by ”well-meaning” people. In sum, if voters fail to direct public policy, they would have to pay the price. So if voters are unconcerned with terror and refuse to punish governments which fail to prevent terror attacks, they are likely to personally pay the price. Hopefully–and admittedly this is hope–repeated attacks would convince them of the monumental price they pay for the state’s failing. Similarly, individuals driven by a desire to influence public policy may set up institutions to promote them. INI it self is a small effort in that direction.

Now, a more basic question: What is good public policy? There is of course a theoretical model detailed in anny undergraduate book on public policy. But how does it translate into real world–actionable policies–is not very clear. Unless someone is presumptive enough to claim that what constitutes good public policy is always clear to that particular individual, it is democracy with its ability to provide a platform for multiple ideas which ensures public interest. Again, that is certainly not always the case but the weakness lies more with the individuals rather than system per se. And democracy, more than any other sytem of governance permits course-correction. That is exactly why violent upheavals are less common–and less successful– in a democracy compared to autocratic models of governance.

Similarly, Gaurav’s argues that democracy confuses ”Guns and Butter” issues necessitating the availability of multiple votes. Again, the multiple levels of government–municipal; state; and federal already ensures that voters have the ability to select governments based on differing concerns. A voter might choose his local representative on his ability to deliver good roads while he may vote for his central representative on the basis of his terror plank. That he may not do so is his choice. Blaming democracy for the inability of voters to judiciously exercise his franchise is meaningless. It also ignores the fact that ultimately delivering on terror is linked to good governance; a government which cannot protect its citizens from seasonal rains cannot rescue from randomly placed bombs. Period.

There is also a small matter of democracy being the only mechanism of governance guaranteeing freedom. An inefficient and occasionally exasperating democracy is morally superior to an orderly dictatorship. And on evidence available to us–it would also deliver better governance in the long term.

Gaurav cites Churchill’s oft-quoted remark that ”It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”. Cliched as it may be, it is the strongest argument in favor of democracy–without offering an alternative to representative democracy, questioning it’s very basis is meaningless.

Or to repeat another cliche: Let perfect not be the enemy of the good.