V. Ramani's web I AM, THEREFORE I THINK

Across the world, we are witnessing the rise of political parties that build their base on popular dissatisfaction with the prevailing economic situation in the country, a virulent dislike (in fact, hatred) of the hitherto ruling elites and minority groups and the yearning for a messiah who will usher in a period of prosperity and national glory: President Trump with his MAGA is a prominent example. In this day and age, ideologies like communism and socialism are only empty catchphrases and distinctions of right, left and centre have ceased to have any meaning. Seizure of economic, political and social power are the only goals of the new elites that seek to replace their jaded predecessors. The new power structures emerging or already in power in different countries do, however, have a common approach on how to access and then hang on to power, relying on the concepts of populism, unitarianism, oligarchy, majoritarianism and nationalism. The implications of these for democracy and for the democratic functioning of societies is what ought to concern all those who value basic human rights of the individual and operation of societies according to the rule of law.
Populism is by no means the preserve of authoritarian rulers alone. In the absence of any meaningful approach to tackle the weighty problems of joblessness, social and economic inequality and environmental degradation (the last impacting the lives of millions), resort is had to the provision of freebies, whether monthly income support to women and the aged, free/highly subsidised food grain supply to large swathes of the population or provision of free electricity, transport, etc. I have no bones to pick with supportive measures to ameliorate the lot of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups in society. But when policy measures aim to reach over 60 percent of the population for an unspecified period of time, it is legitimate to worry over whether governments will be able to sustain the staggering fiscal burden over time. Giving a population fish rather than teaching it how to fish is going to create dependent populations that are unable to raise resources to sustain their families. Competitive populism among political parties has created serious fiscal crises in many countries, including India, and governments are hard pressed to match revenues and expenditures: education, health and crucial infrastructure sectors bear the long term consequences of suboptimal funding.
Unitarianism is another concept that appeals to a dominating, authoritarian mindset. There is a contemptuous dismissal of the thought processes of other individuals, with the resultant cessation of dialogue and consensus as means to reach acceptable solutions: “papa always knows best”. This disease has long permeated the politico-administrative milieu in India. State governments which argue vociferously for devolution and decentralisation of financial and administrative powers are loath to delegate the same powers to urban and rural local bodies. I have been witness to this in my years in the Maharashtra bureaucracy: the powers of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis, given through legislative enactment in the 1960s, were steadily whittled down by the 1980s. The 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution have largely been ignored by most state governments. Maharashtra hastily scuttled the Mayor in Council initiative in Mumbai and Nagpur, once it became clear that the Mayor could well emerge as a rival centre of power in cash-rich municipal corporations. The Inter State Council, which could have served as a useful vehicle for centre-state consultation on various issues that impinge on the autonomy of states, has been moribund for years. The current wisdom is that “double engine sarkars” need to have engines from the same party at the centre and in the states. The absence of countervailing political power at various levels of governance has deleterious effects on democracy.
Oligarchy or the dominance in the polity and economy of select political and business elites is another warning signal that democracy could be under threat. A symbiotic relationship has always existed between governments and business — the parties running these governments need money to fight elections and business needs to ensure that government policies add to its profits and growth. But a feature of recent years has been the close nexus between governments and business, so much so that governments alter the level playing field of open bidding to favour a specific a few corporate interests. This has led to the entry of business oligarchs into active political life, Elon Musk being the latest example. The consequences are twofold: it leads to severe economic inequalities in the economy as well as lopsided growth which is capital intensive, with growing joblessness in the economy. There is also the attendant danger of violation of environmental norms, with severe impact on the health and livelihood of large sections of the population.
Majoritarianism is a strategy employed by governments to counter opposition to curtailment of personal liberties and to economic policies that affect the lives of common people. These governments are increasingly resorting to evoking fear and dislike of the “other” in the minds of the majority community on issues ranging from diet to marriage, personal laws, cornering of scarce jobs and change of religious belief. This is partly achieved through legislative fiat (beef laws, immigration control regulations, anti-conversion laws, uniform civil codes) and partly through covert (and not so covert) support for vigilante groups that actively propagate a majoritarian agenda. The joblessness and income/wealth inequalities that are a consequence of favouring selected oligarchs and going in for misdirected financial sops to large sections of the population will sooner or later fuel public anger. To counter this, recourse is had to the “enemy” within the country who is intent on destabilising the economy and society. These enemies could range from minority communities to citizen groups, liberal voices, academics and journalists. With the active connivance of print and electronic media, conspiracy theories are spun out to create insecurity and fear in the minds of the majority community. The ruling dispensation is thus able to develop a dedicated vote bank that will ensure legitimisation of its policies at election time.
Nationalism, and the dangers posed by it, were pointed out by our national bard, Rabindranath Tagore, over a century ago. As succinctly emphasised by him “There is only one history — the history of man. All national histories are merely chapters in the larger one.” He was clear that “the fierce self-idolatry of nation-worship” cannot be the goal of human history. The concept of nationalism, which is hardly a few centuries old, has been used as a convenient tool by political elites to capture power, ensnare their gullible populations in its web and to extend their dominion over lands outside their borders, often in defence of those living there who share a common linguistic or ethnic history (Nazi Germany in the 20th century and Russia in recent years). This extension of the “other” from the minority community within the borders of one’s country to those of this community living in other countries in the neighbourhood facilitates the creation of an enemy without, aided and abetted by their “collaborators” within the country. At appropriate moments, mass hysteria can be whipped up using this weapon of nationalism to stifle freedoms of local minority groups and to resort to military adventurism against other countries in the name of protecting the rights of “one’s sisters and brothers”.
The lethal cocktail of the above five elements is given potency (a) by suitably altering history lessons in educational institutions to emphasise past victimhood of the majority population; (b) through sustained media bombardment of populations to convince them of the danger to their safety and security; (c) by getting the buy-in of all institutions of the state — the bureaucracy, judiciary, investigative agencies, independent constitutional bodies — to the seductive concepts of national interest and national security; and, finally, (d) by suppressing, through draconian laws, the expression of dissent and critical comments by the independent press, academia, intellectuals and civil society groups that question the actions and policies of the ruling dispensation. As institutions charged with the maintenance of checks and balances on the executive are weakened, the country moves inexorably towards a perverted interpretation and application of the rule of law. There is no need for coup d’etats or imposition of martial law. The instruments of democracy are enough to bleed democracy through a thousand cuts.