International Seminar :Mahatma Gandhi for 21 st Century
Gandhi
,Democracy and Dissent
Siby K
Joseph
The systems of
governance which we witness today in most parts of the globe are the result of
continuous evolution and adaptation through ages. Democratic polity
started with limited franchise and ultimately resulted in universal adult
franchise. It also witnessed the transition of an idea of a minimal state
to the welfare state in which the government plays a more proactive role in
promoting social welfare and addressing the various issues confronted by
people. These transitions radically changed the entire character of democratic
governance all over the world. Among the existing patterns of democracy,
liberal democracy with representative government has become its most dominant
form practiced in the world today. In a liberal democratic system, the people
are considered to be the ultimate source of authority and the government
derives its power from their consent. Based on the basic principle of
representation, citizens elect their representatives assuming that they will
take decisions which represent the will and aspirations of the people. It is assumed
that such a system would ensure accountability and transparency through
mechanisms like independent judiciary ensuring rule of law to all citizens,
free press raising voice against arbitrary and authoritarian tendencies and
free and transparent decision making process. It is also expected that people’s
power is exercised through various means like voting, participating in public
debates, engaging in peaceful protests, exercising the right to information and
holding elected representatives accountable.
However, the fact
of the matter is that existing patterns of democracy suffer from certain
corrosive structures and forces that hamper the flourishing of democracy in the
desired direction. There is a large disconnect between the people and their
representatives, particularly the poor and marginalized sections of society.
They were not given any space to voice their opinions or ventilate their grievances.
Literally they were kept out of the entire process of deliberation and decision
making process thereby resulting in unequal representation and growing
inequality in the democratic process. The rich, elitists and powerful corporate
bodies and their interest groups exert undue influence on the
decision process catering to their vested interest. They
often finance the election campaigns and their lobbying corrupts the entire
system of governance. Even the entire process of lawmaking and policy decisions
were made to ensure the control and dominance of these groups in
the existing socio, economic and political order. These groups were indulged in
acts of corruption and silenced the voices acting against them. Citizens may
feel disconnected and alienated from the political process of governance. This
is one of the reasons for voter apathy and low turnout in the elections.
Liberal democracies are found to be vulnerable to authoritarian and dictatorial
tendencies of the leader of the ruling party. This led
to the usage of the term viz. ‘machine politicians’
[1] who are more interested in personal gains and
power than public service. They are controlled and influenced by special
interest groups in politics. They use patronage and cronyism to maintain power
and engage in corrupt and unethical practices. Since these defects are inherent
in the existing patterns of democracy right from the local to the international
level, various efforts are being taken to provide scope for popular
participation in law-making as well as other processes of decision-making. This
called for the inclusion of alternative avenues outside the conventional
institutions of representative democracy in which citizens could really
articulate their views, participate in the decision-making and ensure citizens
participation in the law making process. The recent resurgence in discourses on
deliberative democracy is one of such attempts to make democracy more people
oriented by giving them the opportunity to participate in public discourse.[2] It focused
on non-state sites as fruitful locations for deliberation and
the concept of public sphere. However, it hardly challenged the
centralized power of the state or the dominance of the rich and powerful who
control the whole process of governance.
Here comes the
significance of Gandhi's alternative system of decentralized form of democratic
governance in which the fulcrum of power actually remained with the
people. That is why Ramin Jahanbegloo described Gandhi as one of the most
significant and relevant non-Western theorist of democracy. [3] However he
admits the fact that though Gandhian non-violence has captured the
attention of many civic actors and democratic theorists around the world for a
quite long time, his vision of democracy is still missing from most
Western debates in democratic theory.[4] He uses
the term “integral democracy” to describe Gandhi’s alternative model of
democracy which was altogether different from the dominant liberal democracy
based on representative government. Further in nutshell
he explains Gandhi’s concept. “In Gandhi’s “integral democracy,” there would be
no representative government, no capitalist greed, and certainly no social and
political hierarchy. In many ways, Gandhi’s advocacy of citizenship duty and
his insistence on democracy’s ethical renewal in terms of character building
(people leadership) and enlightened citizenship (democratic passion) is first
and foremost a response to what he took to be certain enduring tensions between
spirituality and politics and individual and state in Western liberal political
life.”[5]
Gandhi in his
seminal work Hind Swaraj, which he wrote in 1909, had
vehemently criticized the basic notion of political representation which was
the mainstay of western liberal democracy. He argued that the elected members
prioritize personal interests over the public good. They were driven by fear
and self-preservation rather than altruism. Their work was largely ineffective,
and decisions were frequently reversed. Party discipline leads them to mindless
voting; stifling independent thought processes. The very system was wasteful,
inefficient, and ineffective. [6] Gandhi’s strong critique goes far beyond the British
Parliament-which he described as a ‘sterile woman’ and ‘prostitute’
[7]-to the very
concept of representative democracy itself, drawing its inherent flaws and
weaknesses. According to him Western industrial civilization and its liberal
democracy were highly materialistic, individualistic, competitive and
centralized. Further it was very much disconnected from traditional values and
neglected the spiritual dimension of human existence. It was very much
imperialistic in its very nature and justified colonialism and exploitation
under the guise of "civilizing" others. Gandhi's critique of Western
civilization and bringing into limelight the inadequacies of liberal democracy
was not a rejection of democracy itself, but rather a call for a more holistic,
inclusive, and spiritually grounded approach to governance based on a true
civilization. He said “There is no human institution but has its dangers.
The greater the institution the greater the chances of abuse. Democracy is a
great institution and therefore it is liable to be greatly abused. The remedy,
therefore, is not avoidance of democracy but reduction of possibility of abuse
to a minimum.” [8] He
advocated a more direct, participatory, and morally grounded approach to democratic
governance, as outlined in his vision of Swaraj. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi
talks about a village oriented mode of life and governance
based on the traditional wisdom of India. He was
of the view that in India our ancestors managed their lives and affairs by
themselves without much outside interference. Gandhi used the terms
inner swaraj and outer swaraj to explain his schemata or vision of
swaraj. He was of the opinion that higher the level of inner Swaraj,
the need for outer Swaraj will be minimal. His ideal vision was
a state of enlightened anarchy or self rule. As a practical
idealist he never rejected the importance of outer swaraj. In 1921,
Gandhi in his new preface to Hind Swaraj, admitted the
fact that as the people of India at the present state of social development
were not willing to accept and work towards his concept of inner Swaraj.[9] Given
the situation even though he was individually working for self-rule, his
corporate activity was devoted to the attainment of Parliamentary Swaraj. At
the same time, he was convinced that people's liberty and freedom can be
ensured only through decentralization power. He was of the view that centralization of power
destroys the spirit of democracy and paves the way of corruption and
exploitation. Thus he was highly critical of centralized state[10].
For him, it was nothing but as a living symbol of violence and domination. In
his ideal scheme of things there was no place for state or political power. He
said “To me political power is not an end but one of the means of enabling
people to better their condition in every department of life. Political power
means capacity to regulate national life through national representatives. If
national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation
become necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a state
everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a
hindrance to his neighbour.” [11]
As a pragmatist he believed that the ideal cannot be realized in life. Thus he
agreed with Henry David Thoreau that Government is best which governs the
least. [12]
Thus he postulates the idea of a minimal state in which fruits of real
democracy could be attained.
In order to
attain the ideal of democracy he advocated self-sufficient and
self-reliant communities in his ideal vision of “village swaraj.”
He wrote: My idea of Village Swaraj is that it is a complete republic,
independent of its neighbours for its own vital wants, and yet interdependent
for many others in which dependence is a necessity. Thus every village's first
concern will be to grow its own food crops and cotton for its cloth. ….
Education will be compulsory up to the final basic course. As far as possible
every activity will be conducted on the co-operative basis. There will be no
castes such as we have today with their graded untouchability. Non-violence
with its technique of Satyagraha and non-co-operation will be the sanction of
the village community. There will be a compulsory service of village guards who
will be selected by rotation from the register maintained by the village. The government
of the village will be conducted by the Panchayat of five persons, annually
elected by the adult villagers, male and female, possessing minimum prescribed
qualifications. … My purpose is to present an outline of village government.
Here there is perfect democracy based upon individual freedom. The individual
is the architect of his own government. The law of non-violence rules him and
his government. He and his village are able to defy the might of a world. For
the law governing every villager is that he will suffer death in the defence of
his and his village's honour.” [13]
His scheme of governance was a bottom-up approach in which the people at the
grassroots level would be real custodians of power and they would decide what
power to be delegated to the higher echelons of authority. Through this
he wanted to reverse the pyramid of authority or top-down approach of
devolution of powers to the lower levels.
The government in his vision of swaraj would have consent of largest
number of adults and real swaraj will be realized only when
the people have capacity to resist, regulate and control
authority when it is abused, Gandhi said “ Real Swaraj will come, not by the
acquisition of authority by a few, but by the acquisition of the capacity by
all to resist authority when it is abused. In other words, Swaraj is to be
attained by educating the masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate and
control authority.[14]
His notion of
swaraj is inextricably linked with his concept of Satyagraha . He looked
at satyagraha as the means to achieve swaraj in which the individual
through voluntary self-sacrifice and suffering challenges unjust
political, social and economic structures marked by centralization. He
visualized a predominantly nonviolent society and stressed the importance of
nonviolence in democracy.[15]
He was of the opinion that “Science of war leads one to dictatorship
pure and simple. Science of nonviolence can alone lead one to pure democracy.
"[16]
He believed that democracy could only be saved through non-violence and so long
as it is sustained by violence, it couldn't protect the interests of the weak
or marginalized. Gandhi was a great champion of the right to
dissent. He was a source of inspiration for great dissenters, including
individuals who faced authoritarianism and totalitarianism of an extreme kind,
even in his lifetime . Dissenters, for instance, like the Soviet Union’s
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Nazi Germany’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who in 1934
almost came to India to spend time with Gandhi.[17]
Dissent was a natural act for him which can be applied to one’s family
including father and it was not something disrespectful irrespective of the
fact that the other party may be father, friend or government. While doing
resistance or disobeying a law repugnant to his conscience the course of action
is an act of justice.[18]
Mahatma through his life and actions successfully created a unique and
creative form of dissent to challenge unjust laws and transform the society
whether in India or South Africa through his satyagraha struggles. Non-Cooperation
Movement (1920-1922) was nothing but a nationwide movement to dissent against
British rule, encouraging Indians to boycott British goods, law courts, and
government institutions. Gandhi’s Salt March was a classic example of
dissent symbolically producing salt from sea water to protest the British
salt tax, to protest against the oppressive law. Through individual
Satyagraha (1940-1941) Gandhi encouraged selected individuals of high moral
character to dissent against British rule. Quit India Movement of 1942
was Gandhi’s final call for an end to British rule in India, leading to
widespread civil disobedience and dissent against colonial authority. Gandhi
successfully used dissent as a means to achieve a more just equitable and
peaceful society both in South Africa and India demonstrating the power of
non-violent dissent in achieving socio-economic and political
change.
Gandhi's method of
dissent was based on his philosophy of Satyagraha or nonviolent resistance. It
was the most respectful form of dissent maintaining dignity and respect for
opponents, even when there was strong disagreement. Another unique feature of
his dissent was constructive creative dimension focusing on building
alternative systems and institutions. Here combat and creation go hand in hand
each contributing to the other. Romila Thapar in her book
Voices of Dissent: An Essay wrote that “Gandhi created
a variant form of dissent as others had done before him. The continuation
of the right to dissent, to disagree, to debate can be seen in the varied
manner in which it has been formulated. Satyagraha has been one effective form
in recent times.”[19]
Speaking of the continuities of dissent, Romila Thapar said “let me bring
the narrative up to present times and mention what I believe has been a deep
echo and a contemporary version of the kind of dissent that we have frequently
experienced in times not so long ago. In many ways, it takes forward the
Gandhian satyagraha but in a different context.”[20]
Ramin Jahanbegloo
wrote “Gandhi’s success as a universal gadfly goes far beyond his
national stature as the founding father of modern India. As such, his universal
message could be measured by his immense impact on all forms of dissent against
unjust regimes — this includes India — in the past half-century. As such,
Gandhi has become a part of the moral conscience of humanity. His name and
achievements symbolise a sense of revolt against injustice. That is to say, a
proper appreciation of Gandhi’s relevance can only be made against the backdrop
of his civic philosophy of dissent.”[21]
He titled his book as “The Disobedient Indian: Towards a Gandhian Philosophy of
Dissent”[22]
To conclude I
would like to quote from Gandhi "A popular State can never act in advance
of public opinion. If it goes against it, it will be destroyed. Democracy
disciplined and enlightened is the finest thing in the world. A democracy
prejudiced, ignorant, superstitious, will land itself in chaos and may be
self-destroyed." [23]Therefore, it
is the duty of all citizens who believe in democracy and rule of law to
use the weapon of nonviolence Gandhi placed before us to act against
authoritarian and fascist tendencies of the state. Let the words and
actions of Mahatma inspire us to question and disobey unjust laws and
institutions and contribute towards the creation of just and equitable world
order which Gandhi dreamt. Let us follow the path of great dissenter based on
non-violence to mobile people’s power to save our democracy. The first step in
this direction is to educate the people and create a conducive atmosphere
to attain the true democratic aspirations of people at large. In this
process they transform themselves from mere crowds to real citizens performing their duties to save
democracy.When the people at large embrace the technique and methods of non-violence
in their mission to achieve the prevalence of true democratic
practices no force on earth can stop them. It would ultimately result in
creation of a decentralized, participatory form of democracy in which the power
of the State would be reduced to the minimum. In which every citizen would be
acting in a responsible and disciplined manner performing his duties and
enjoying rights in a vibrant democracy which respects the will and aspirations
of people.
Notes and References
[1] According to Encyclopedia Britannica, political machine, especially in the context of U.S. politics, “a party organization, headed by a single boss or small autocratic group, that commands enough votes to maintain political and administrative control of a city, county, or state.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-machine It is also defined as “ an administration of elected public officials who use their influential positions to solidify and perpetuate the power of their political party, often through dubious means. Machine politicians make free use of the spoils system and patronage, rewarding loyal party supporters with appointed government jobs.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/political-machine
[2] See Siby K. Joseph,
“Deliberative Democracy, public sphere and the search for alternative politics
in India: Gandhian Contributions” in Deliberative
Democracy Understanding the Indian
Experience edited by Teresa
Joseph , Siby K. Joseph (London : Routledge,
2018, pp. 59-74)
[3] Ramin Jahanbegloo “The Gandhian Vision of
Democracy’ Democratic Theory, Volume 2, Issue 2, Winter 2015, pp.
59–70.
[4] Ibid .
[5] Ibid .pp.59-60.
[6] Gandhi wrote in Hind Swaraj , “The best men
are supposed to be elected by the people. The members serve without pay and
therefore it must be assumed, only for the public weal. The electors are
considered to be educated and therefore we should assume that they would not
generally make mistakes in their choice. Such a Parliament should not need the
spur of petitions or any other pressure. Its work should be so smooth that its
effects would be more apparent day by day. But as a matter of fact, it is
generally acknowledged that the members are hypocritical and selfish. Each
thinks of his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What
is done today may be undone tomorrow. It is not possible to recall a single
instance in which finality can be predicted for its work. When the greatest
questions are debated its members have been seen to stretch themselves and to
doze. Sometimes the members talk away until the listeners are disgusted.
Carlyle has called it the ‘talking shop of the world’. Members vote for their
party without a thought.Their so-called discipline binds them to it. If any
member, by way of exception,gives an independent vote, he is considered a
renegade. If the money and the time wasted by Parliament were entrusted to a
few good men, the English nation would be occupying today a much higher
platform. Parliament is simply a costly toy of the nation. These views are by
no means peculiar to me. Some great English thinkers have expressed them. One
of the members of that Parliament recently said that a true Christian could not
become a member of it. Another said that it was a baby. And if it has remained
a baby after an existence of seven hundred years,when will it outgrow its
babyhood?”
[7] Gandhi wrote in Hind Swaraj “'That
which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a
prostitute. Both these are harsh terms. But exactly fit the case. That
Parliament has not yet, of its own accord, done a single good thing. Hence I
have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament
is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a
prostitute because it as under the control of ministers who change from time to
time.
Today it is under Mr. Asquith, tomorrow it may be under Mr. Balfour.”
[8] M. K. Gandhi , Young India, 7-5-1931.
[9] Gandhi wrote in the Preface to the new edition of
Hind Swaraj in 1921”My conviction is deeper today than ever.... But I would
warn the reader against thinking that I am today aiming at the Swaraj described
therein. I know that India is not ripe for it. It may seem an impertinence to
say so. But such is my conviction. I am individually working for the self-rule
pictured therein. But today my corporate activity is undoubtedly devoted to the
attainment of Parliamentary Swaraj, in accordance with the wishes of the people
of India.”
[10] “The State
represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a
soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from
violence to which it owes its very existence. Hence I prefer the doctrine of
trusteeship.
I look
upon an increase in the power of the State with the greatest fear because,
although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the
greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of
the progress.
We know of
so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but nowhere the State has
really lived for the poor.”
Gandhi's
interview with Nirmal Kumar Bose
Nirmal Kumar Bose met Gandhi on November 9 and 10, 1934. The report was
published after corrections by Gandhi.
[11] M. K. Gandhi , Young India, 2-7-1931
[12] Ibid .
[13] M. K. Gandhi ,Harijan, 26-7-1942.
[14] M. K. Gandhi , Young India , 29-1-1925.
[15] The Government cannot succeed in becoming entirely non-violent, because it represents all the people. I do not today conceive of such a golden age. But I do believe in the possibility of a predominantly nonviolent society. And I am working for it. M. K. Gandhi , Harijan, 9-3-1940.
[16] M. K. Gandhi , Harijan 15-10-1938.
[17] Rajmohan Gandhi,“Gandhi,
the champion of the right to dissent”, Mint , 1 Oct 2019,
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/gandhi-the-champion-of-the-right-to-dissent-11569937809153.html
[18] If I find that even my father has imposed upon me a law
which is repugnant to my conscience, I think it is the least drastic course
that I could adopt be respectfully telling him that I cannot obey it. By that
course I do nothing but justice to my father... I have myself followed that
course with the greatest advantage and I have preached that ever since. If it
is not disrespectful to say so to my father, it is not so to say so to a friend
and for that matter to my Government. M. K. Gandhi, Young India,
21-1-1920.
[19] Romila Thapar, Voices of Dissent: An Essay
(Calcutta: Seagull Books ,2020) p.140.
[20] Ibid . p.147.
[21] Ramin
Jahanbegloo, Gandhi
for Our Troubled Times
https://jgu.edu.in/blog/2017/01/30/gandhi-for-our-troubled-times/.
[22] Ramin Jahanbegloo ,The Disobedient Indian: Towards a Gandhian
Philosophy of Dissent,( New Delhi: Speaking Tiger Books , 2018)
[23] M. K. Gandhi, Young India, 30-7-1931.
The text of the address delivered by Dr.Siby K Joseph, Director Sri Jamanlal Bajaj Memorial Library and Research Centre for Gandhian Studies of Sevagram Ashram Pratishthan Wardha on August 24,2024 at Gandhi Bhavan Bengaluru in an International Seminar on the theme Mahatma Gandhi for the 21st Century .
Link of sessions
hthttps://www.youtube.com/live/YsysFJRmqU0?feature=shared
Comments
Post a Comment