THECONTRADICTIONSOFDEMOCRACYANDTHE QUESTIONOFMINORITY:ATHEORETICALEXPOSITION
Dr ArijitBhattacharyya AssociateProfessor,DepartmentofPoliticalScience,TheUniversityofBurdwanABSTRACT
Theworkisbasicallyatheoreticalworkanditconcentratesonthetheoreticalliteraturesondemocracy,bothliberalandMarxist,toexploretheinnercontradictionsof democracywithregardtominorityaccommodation.
KEYWORDS:Democracy,Enlightenment,Modernity,Minority,Accommodation
AfterseveralfrustratingattemptstoattainBUDDHATVA,Siddhartha,onhisDdaydecidedthatwhateverhappens,hewillnotfallshortofattainingEnlightenment.AparticularlinewhichthefamousSanskritpoetAshwaghoseusesinhis Buddhacharit to describe this climax seems very interesting in our context: Siddhartharesolvesthatevenifduetosomemiracle"allthebeingsbecomeunanimousorbecomesoneataparticularissue,"(citedinDasGupta,1998:)evenif suchastrangethingoccurs,noonecanresisthimfromattainingEnlightenment. TheGreatMaster,theformerprinceofKapilavastu,whospenthisentirelifeto spreadthemessageofMaitraieamongthecommonmass,andremainedagnostic withregardtotheecclesiastical,wasatleastconfidentabouttheimpossibilityof unanimityamongbeingsatleastinthisworldandwemaysimplyagree.
Itseemsnaturalthatmenwilldifferfromeachotherratherthanconfirming.With thepossibilityofunanimitybeingmerelynon-existent,thenextbestalternative thatwefollowisarrivingatadecisionviamajority However,amajoritydecision isbydefinitionnotaunanimousdecision,andthereforeitisboundtogoagainsta minoritywhomightlegitimatelydevelopafeelingofbeingdiscriminatedby"the people."Thisis,nodoubt,oneofthemostseriousproblemsofademocracy Ina democracyonceadecisionistakenitisbindingoneveryone–evenonitsdissenters.Intheoryademocracymightberomanticallyportrayedasagovernment of,forandbythepeople,butinpracticeademocracyisnothingbutagovernment electedonthebasisofmajority Itisthereforeonlynaturalthatagovernmentthus electedwouldaimatsatisfyingitsvotersandnotitshostileopposition.Itishere thattheissueofdiscriminationarises.Inanydemocracytheremightbeminoritiessoinsignificantinnumberthattheyceasetoexertanyinfluenceinthenumbergameplayedwithinthesystem.
Moreover,thatinademocracy,howevermuchweelateitsideologicalaspects,an individualisnotinapositiontocontrolthegovernmentaldecisionsisknownto all.Anindividualmighthavevotedforapartywhomhethoughttobesocialistin itsideals,butaftercomingtopowerbygainingmajoritythegovernmentformed bythispartymightturnouttobeworstthanaFascistparty Theindividualmight feelhelpless,discriminatedandcheated,buthehasnothingtodobecausehehimselfwasapartofthatgovernmentashehadvotedforit.Thisproblemwaswell conceptualized by Rousseau when he said that the electorate is free only at the momentofvoting;afterthat,especiallyafteragovernmentisformed,heisonce againinchains.[Rousseau,(1761),1955:240-241]Rousseaunodoubtfounda remedyindirectdemocracyandinhisconceptofgeneralwill.Asweknow,the complexitiesofissuesandthebulkofnumbersinamodernstatemaketheformer anunattainableideal,andthelatteralso,ironically,establishmajoritarianismin practice.
NowonderthatBentham,therationalist,washighlysuspiciousofanytalkoffictitious body like community or general will which might claim to be over and above the individual and discriminate them in the name of governing them. Benthamwarnedusthatcommunityisnothingmorethanthesumoftheindividualscomposingit,andthereforeeachonecounts.ThefearofanoppressivepublicopinionalsohauntedhisdiscipleJohnStuartMill.Toprotecttheindividual fromthetyrannyofthemajorityhefoundnootherwaythansecuringtheindividual'ssphereofselfregardingactionsfromthejurisdictionofbothstateandsociety Yetitisinterestingthatwithallhisapprehensionsaboutthetyrannyofthe majority.Millexpressedhisfaithonlyinarepresentativedemocracy.Heknew thatactiveparticipationofavigilantpeoplewastheonlypanaceaforrestricting theevilsofdemocraticgovernance.AshewroteinhisRepresentativeGovernment," itisevidentthattheonlygovernmentwhichcanfullysatisfyalltheexigenciesofthesocialstateisoneinwhichthewholepeopleparticipates;...any participation,eveninthesmallestpublicfunction,isuseful; nothinglesscan be ultimately desirable than the admission of all from a share in the sovereign
poweroftheState"(citedinArblaster,1994:61).Decisionsaffectingallshould bearationaldecisionarrivedbyall.
Asamatteroffact,democracyasanidealbelievesinreachingdecisionsrationally through discussions. Matters of public interest, it believes, should not be leftatthewhimsofthekingsandtheblueblood.Insteaditputsforwardthedictumthatwhataffectsallshouldbedecidedrationallybyall.Thereforesuchadecision seems correct on two grounds: (i) it is a decision of everybody; and more importantly,(ii)Itisarationaldecision.Nowonderthatasocietywillpossessa lotofirrationalelementsthanrationalones,andthus,theseelementsmustalways bekeptincheckforthebenefitofthepeople.Thatiswhytheearlyliberalslike Locke could easily exclude the uneducated, irrational working mass from his civilsocietywithoutabadconscience.Theearlyliberalsbelievedthatnoteveryone had the capacity to opine let alone decide. Thus the uneducated working mass,theemotionalwomen,theNegroesandtheotherblackandbrownbarbariansandunculturedofthecoloniesweregivennospacewithinthedemocraticdiscourseandwereexcludedwithouthesitation.Itwas,theythought,notaquestion ofdiscriminatingtheworkers,thewomenandthecolonies,butanattempttoprotect the holy ideal of democracy from degeneration, decay and contamination fromtheirrational.
If we keep in mind that democracy is in fact another important offshoot of Enlightenmentandmodernity,thenitwouldnotsurpriseustonotethatdemocracy,fromitsoutsethadanOTHERintheworkers,thewomen,thebackandthe colonized.Ironicallyitneededseveralmassdemocraticmovementstorectifythe situationandnaturalizeandaccommodatetheotherwithinthedemocraticspace. Thetrendcontinuestothisday,butnowdemocracyhasfoundanewOTHERin theseveralethnicandethno-nationalistgroupswhorefusetoaccommodatethemselves within the homogenizing project of democratic nation-state building. In itsoverzealouseffortstobuildahomogeneousnationstatedemocraciesallover theworldareblatantlyviolatingthehumanrightsofmanyofitsminoritygroups, ironicallyinthenameofdemocracy Theresultisaseriesofserious,bloodyethnicconflictallovertheglobe.
Theproblemis,inademocracyaminorityhastoobeythemajoritydictatesall thetimewhichleadstothecreationofafeelingofdiscrimination.Aftertheformationofagovernment,aminorityhastoconfirmtothedictatesofmajorityand acceptalawwhichithadhithertoopposed.Thisleadstoaqueersituation,and Rousseaurightlyasked,"Howcantheopposingminoritybebothfreeandsubject to laws to which they have not consented?". This is something which cannot occur Thereforeafeelingofdiscriminationisquietnaturalforaminoritygroup who feel themselves to be systematically deprived by the majority Anthony Arblasterrightlynotesthatifinademocracytherearesomepermanentminorities who know that issues which are most significant for their existence can be ignoredsimplybythefactoftheoperationofamajorityprinciple,thenthatprinciple ceases to be adequate. (Arblaster, 1994: 66-68)AsArblaster notes, "The existence of permanent minorities, whose aspirations, wishes and even principlesaresystematicallyignoredoroverriddeninthecollectivedecisionmaking processes, can easily make a majoritarian democracy unworkable." (Arblaster, 1994:68)Thisminoritymaybeareligiousgroup,orinmoderntimes,someethno-nationalistgroupswhosedemandsaresystematicallybeingout-weighedby thenumberofvotesofthemainstreamdiscriminatedmajority Ifanybysuchits democratic minority thinks government, that it is then continually it might beingthink of challenging the system itself. In extreme circumstances such a groupmighteventakeadesperateattempttosecedefromthemainstreamand form a separate society and state of their own where they will be the majority Ironically the number game might make the former majority a new deprived minorityinthenewsituation.
Copyright©2023,IERJ.Thisopen-accessarticleispublishedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial4.0InternationalLicensewhichpermitsShare(copyandredistributethematerialinany mediumorformat)andAdapt(remix,transform,andbuilduponthematerial)undertheAttribution-NonCommercialterms.
So far we have been concerned with the issue of majoritarianism. But there is anotherseriousquestionconcerning"whogoverns".Thisquestionwasfirstdealt bynolessapersonthatKarlMarx.Marxcouldrightlyconceivethatitwasnot merelyaproblemofmajoritydominatingminority.Instead,therealityofclass struggleconvincedMarxthattheoppositehadoccurred:aminorityhadhitherto dominatedthemajority Theminorityclass,havingmonopolyoverthemeansof production,sanctionedandprotectedbycoercivestatestructure,dominatesand discriminatesthemajorityhavenots.Thesolutionthereforewasnottobefound withintheexistingparadigm,butonlybyburstingasundertheexistingoneand creatinganew Inthepresentera,Marxbelieved,thatclassconsciousproletariat mustuniteunderthecommunistpartytowagethefinalwaragainsttheminority oppressors,winthebattle,andestablishanewsocialistsocietywiththeruleof majoritybeingestablishedforthefirsttimeinhistory Itisonlyherethatalldiscriminationwillcometoanendanddemocracyinrealitywillbeestablished.Till then,alltalkofdemocracyisnonsense.
Marx's critique of existing democracy as bourgeois democracy, where people had "only the freedom to die”, received a worldwide audience, who sincerely startedtobelievetheindispensabilityofsocialismforestablishingrealdemocracywithoutdiscriminationofanykind.SoitseemsthatMarxismisacritiqueof bourgeoisie democracy and not of democracy The emotional attachment and clear cut sympathy of both Marx and Engels towards Paris Commune demonstrates this point. "The Commune", as Marx wrote in his Civil Was in France (1871),"wasformedofthemunicipalcouncillors,chosenbyuniversalsuffrage in the various wards of town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majorityofitsmemberswasnaturallyworkingmen,oracknowledgedrepresentativesoftheworkingclass.TheCommunewastobeaworking,notaparliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time the police was at once strippedofitspoliticalattributes,andturnedintotheresponsibleandatalltimes revocableagentoftheCommune.Soweretheofficialsofallotherbranchesof administration. "(Cited in Miliband, 1977:139-140) Even the magistrates and judgeswereelected,responsibleandrevocable.[seeBottomore(ed),2000:151] IronicallytheytermeditasDictatorshipoftheProletariat.Thismodelwasdesirabletothembecauseitdemonstratesalltherationalityinherentinademocracy Lenindecidedtomakethismodelmorerationalbyensuringstrictsurveillanceof thevanguardofthepartyoverthecommonpeople.Theworkingpeoplemustbe guided on the proper path to prevent them from being contaminated from the vices of the erstwhile bourgeois order Therefore the real democracy of the majority, i.e., the dictatorship of the majority, must also be representative in nature.Theworkingclassmustrulethemselvesthroughtheold,wisemenwho constitute the vanguard of the party Lenin, the master of tactics, tailored the word Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suit his own theoretical and practical needs, and used it against the social democratic renegades like Kautsky and Bernstein,who,heannounced,weredeviatingfromtheHolyDoctrineofEmancipation propagated by the Master (Marx and Engels). It is rather surprising to findoldLeninirritatedandvexedwithhisdiscipleStalinwhowasinvokingthe WritingsofhisMasters(nowMarx,EngelsandLenin!)towagehisJihadagainst thosehebelievedtobetheenemiesofthepeople.Afterall,Stalin'ssecretproject of Marxist God Building Movement, BOGOSTROITEL' STVO, started by Gorky and Lunacharsky in 1890 (which however was strongly condemned by Lenin,ironically,thefirstMarxistgod,ifoneisallowedtointerpretinthisway) neededDevilstobeexorcisedforthesanctityofthenewlyestablishedworkers democracy amidst the hostile, profane other world of capitalism. [For details about BOGOSTROITEL' STVO see Noll, 1996:54-55 & Kolakowski, 1978: Chapter1,Vol.-1]
Whathappenedinrealityistheemergenceofnewminorityeliteofthepartywho startedimposingitswilloverthemajority AsTrotskynoted,thedictatorshipof theproletariatturnedintothedictatorshipoftheparty Itfurtherdegeneratedinto thedictatorshipofthePolitburoandfinallybecamethedictatorshipoftheParty President.The challengers likeTrotsky and Bukharin became the new other of thisalternativemodelofdemocracyandtheyweresystematicallydiscriminated anddeprivedinthenameofprotectingthepeople,thistime,therealmajority
Itturnsoutthatwhateverthetheoreticallogicofdemocracymightbe,inpractice; theconsequencesareeither(i)thediscriminationofaminoritybyamajority,or (ii)thedominanceofminority(communistorrightist)eliteovertherealmajority So what is to be done? Should we abandon democracy and wait for Nietzsche's superman? Or, should we like Habermas, regard democracy as another incompleteprojectofmodernityandrestrainfromthrowingoutthebabyalong withthebath-water?Certainly,asAdornoandHorkheimernoted,theDialectics ofEnlightenmenthadleddemocracytoitsopposite,i.e.,totalitarianismofboth leftandrightbrand.Theworldhasbeenstunnedbytheaudacitiesandtyrannies ofbothStalinismandFascism.Legitimacyacquiredthroughthedemocraticpath hadbeenusedbylegal-rationalofficestojustifyethniccleansingandevengenocide.
Butwecanregarditastheaberrationoftheidealandnottheidealitself.Ifwe abandontheclichethatdemocracyisagovernmentof,for,andbythepeople,and regarditasaformofgovernmentwhichreducesthegapbetweenthegovernors andthegoverned,wherethelattertriestokeeptheformerstendencyofabusing powerincheck,thenwemightadoptaverydifferentapproachtowardsdemocracy Democracywouldnolongerremainaslogan,butarealefforttoconstitutea publicsphere[HabermasinGoodin&Pettit(ed.),1997:105-106]whererational
communicativedialogue[HabermasinGoodin&Pettit(ed),1997:108]between citizens would resolve various political conflicts. It is true, as Jon Elster has pointedout,"rationalcommunicativedialogue"willnotleadtounanimousdecision.We may also accept Elster's criticism that it will consume much time and energy of its citizens and demand the participation of every one. [Elster in Goodin&Pettit(ed.),1997:132-134]Butonecannot,afterallsitidleandcomplainthatheisbeingdiscriminated.Onemustactandbeactiveinordertoseek remedy Itisonlyademocraticformofgovernmentwhichgivesussuchascope. Wecanparticipateactivelyinthepublicsphere,analyzetheprosandconsofthe variousissuesandselecttheonewhichseemsmostrationalanddesirable.Ifafter genuinediscussionsdecisionsaretakenrationallyconsideringthemeritofeach issue,itislikelythatdecisionswoulddisplayandestablishconditionsofjustice. Itwillalsobeamajoritydecision,butonewhichwillnotdiscriminatetheminority Afterall,itisnotinatotalitarianregime,butinademocracythataminority cansafelyraiseitsvoice,freelypropagatetherationalityoftheirdemandandtry togainthesupportofthemajorityinfavouroftheirlegitimatedemands.
REFERENCES
1. Arblaster,Anthony Democracy WorldView,1994;
2. Bottomore,Tom(ed.).ADictionaryofMarxistThought.WorldView,2000;
3. DasGupta,SantiKusum.BuddhaOBauddhadharmaEbangPrachinBauddhaSamaj. MahabodhiBookAgency,1998;
4. Estulnd,David(ed.).Democracy Blackwell,2002;
5. Goodin,Robert&Pettit,Philip(eds.).ContemporaryPoliticalPhilosophy:AnAnthology WilleyBlackwell,1997;
6. Kolakowski,Leszek.MainCurrentsinMarxism,Vols.-1-3.OxfordUniversityPress, 1978;
7. Miliband,Ralph.MarxismandPolitics.OxfordUniversityPress,1977;
8. Noll,Richard.TheJungCult:OriginsofaCharismaticMovement.PrincetonUniversityPress,1994.