CAN WE CRITICISE DEMOCRACY AS A POLITICAL SYSTEM?

Criticism has been a key part of democracy. But Can criticism critique the very foundation that allows criticism might be the biggest test of the system itself. The cat eating its own tail argument. Can we criticize democracy as a political system? And another question, Should we? Also, one more question, Will I automatically be a supporter of Dictatorship if I wish to critique Democracy? 

We see some ancient critiques of Democracy in Plato and Aristotle. Since then, No one dares to critique the system of democracy even though, there still exists curtailing of freedoms and rights in democratic countries. Why is that? Why no intellectual dares stand against it? I have seen Western thinkers being more open in these regards than Indian thinkers. Indian thinkers are so hell bent in preserving democracy in this country. I am not saying that it should not be preserved. I am saying something similar to what Ram Jethmalani, the famous Advocate of supreme court said once, "I do not care if I am defending a criminal, this is my job, I am doing my job, and before the judgement of court, my client is not a criminal for me."

I say, the job of a thinker should not derive from emotions. That is why I am not a very big fan of phenomenological thinking. It seems to me that a lot of emotional bias creeps in when someone wishes to see "phenomenon" as it is. How can you? There are always layers of reasons under which the truly the phenomenon derives its meaning. 

So, In my opinion, It is not only in implementation that Democratic countries lack, but I think it is in the foundations of Democracy that the problem lies. I mean, Democracy as a political theory, as a political philosophy. 

So, my aim, here onwards, is to try to develop a sound critique in the way we understand democracy today and how it fails to deliver what it promises. 

And I approach here is going to be Beyond Aristotle. Already what he said or wrote should not be my concern. My concern should be what I can write. This is part of my understanding of how a thinker should operate. Not of course on emotions and needs. You should not write because you think the world needs something. You should write like a poet write poems. Creativity. A thinker should only mind himself to thinking creatively. Not to describe material reality. Not to diagnose like a medical doctor. But just dreaming innovative flaws that can exist in systems and theories. 

I come from a most "Anti-Sowell" version of thinkers. Thomas Sowell, the famous anti-communist economist, he used to say, there is no one to fix the accountability of these thinkers who just cook any thought in their head and then think it will work. 

To some extent I agree with Sowell but with a twist. I think critiques should be done without accountability. Constructive programmes and constructive theories which tend to establish a particular way of order should be scrutinized and the thinker should be held accountable. Because in these seemingly positive theories lies the biggest problems. 

When Mao comes with the program of cultural revolution, it is a program not of thinking but of doing. We should be skeptical of all those "doers" who are very desperate to do something. 

Thinkers should be anti-doers. Thinkers should scrutinize. Criticize all hitherto existing. Even the non-existent should be critiqued. 

One of my critiques of Democracy is what I call "Lack of substantive accountability", 

What is that? 

My prime concern has been at the interface of plan and action. Why, in politics, the dichotomy of ideal and practical exists. Why implementation always lacks the ideal? 

And I am avoiding to just simply say, "Oh humans are not perfect". These kind of common sensical answers are anti-theory and anti-philosophy, they should be avoided at all costs. Come up with more creative answers. 

Amartya Sen argues, in his dichotomy of Niti and Nyaya, That Niti, the procedural aspect of Justice is always kept at ideal while Nyaya, the substantive aspect of justice always lags. He gives the example of policies of affirmative action. How the policies of reservations are there in procedural aspects but still in substance, in reality, we still find those sections marginalized. 

Why this dichotomy of Procedure and Substance exists? In my opinion, the answer lies in the very way we conceptualize aspects of Polity and economy in our democracy. Who is the implementer of policies? Bureaucracy, yes. Say, politicians are policymakers, but they are also held accountable through Voting. Bureaucrats are held accountable via the representatives, the politicians. But the real problem is in the nature of this accountability. 

I think, this accountability is in itself, Procedural and not substantive. The answer to why only procedural accountability exists; I will attempt to give below. But let us understand what I mean by this. 

Suppose there is a homeless woman, who could not arrange for herself a ration card, a BPL for that matter. Now, a bureaucrat who does not act via his conscience, might just reject her saying, Die, I don't care, no card, no ration. Or No Aadhaar card, No provision for ration card for you. Yes, I know, no Bureaucrat talks like that, but they might behave like that because it is not illegal. They are following their duty. This is what their job is. To follow procedure. In substance whether the woman needed it, whether she is the real needy of that policy, is immaterial to the bureaucrat. This, in essence, is the lack of substantive accountability. 

Then, Politicians act on a macroscopic scale. When a politician claims, that this many gas connections I ensured, these many houses I ensured for the homeless. Understand that this is what the data he has been given by his bureaucrat. He also does not know whether this distribution of residence or gas connection has been done to in substance or just in procedure. 

I claim, this is in the concept of democracy that this lack of substantive accountability exists. Let me expand on that. Let us compare Monarchy of ancient India and Democracy of Post-colonial India. 

A typical king of ancient India had enough discretion. In fact, more than enough would be appropriate phrase to describe it. But, ask yourself, do you think a post-colonial powerholder, be it a bureaucrat or a Chief minister has that much of discretion. Compare only in terms of discretion and nothing else. 

It seems like as a reaction to thousands of years of arbitrary power in hands of one person, or one group, we are now hell bent to just avoid any kind of discretion in hands of powerholders. We want to make enough, sometimes more than enough rules to ensure that power is not misused in anyway. 

But we could not take this into our minds that, absence of rules can be misused through discretion by power holders but also, along with that, Presence of rules can be misused through non-discretion by the powerholders. 

Just imagine, If the friend of the bureaucrat, a powerful builder, forges and arranges all documents to get favors of Aavaas yojana, and a needy homeless person could not, did not, here, the rule of having proper documents act as an area of misuse for the bureaucrat for giving his friend some Favours. This might be unethical, but it is not illegal, is it? This is what he might say. 

This Lack to ensure substantive accountability has roots in the modern obsession of the democratic system to make proper procedures and reduce human discretion to the maximum. It renders even the honest power holders, who would have used their discretion in the favor of substantive justice toothless. They are bound to bear the burden of rules in the favor of the powerful and not the needy. 

So, one prominent critique of democracy, is the lack of substantive accountability, which is related to the aspect of discretion. Where non-discretion of powerholders in modern democracy is also a way to misuse power. 

''Even doing your duty can be a way to not doing your duty, Mr. Bureaucrat".