Democracy ..... really?

Thank God there is no absolute democracy in how we run homes, schools, offices, courts, or Dharmic institutions, nor is there total freedom of speech in those places. 

If there were, we would be handing out lollipops to win the votes of the naive everywhere.

But when it comes to running the country, India has more democracy than it can handle.

The Indian nation is burdened with the world's largest number of media outlets, political parties, and independents, all staking a claim to rule. To put it in perspective: As on date, India has 6 national parties, 65 registered regional parties, and over 2,500 individuals and unregistered parties. Adding to the chaos are more than few hundred news channels and over 150,000 print, digital and podcast outlets in English, Hindi and regional languages.

Unfortunately, competition is so fierce that many are willing to sacrifice the country's well-being for self-interest. By comparison, America has a tiny fraction of this - a minuscule free media landscape and a dominant two-party system that shows considerable convergence.

The idea that democracy is always good and dictators are always evil has become the default assumption in popular discussion. Frankly, it is Goebbels' law at work - indoctrination through repetition is what creates this pro-democracy belief.

Goebbels' law says that if a big lie is presented as serving a purpose and repeated long enough, most people will eventually accept it.

Evil dictators are rare, yet they are quoted often, becoming favorite examples for those pushing strawman arguments. Ironically, Hitler, evil and cruel as he may be - rose through democratic means, and Joseph Goebbels became his propagandist.

Today his technique is used to promote the same damage in the name of democracy.

In theory, democracy can be the least evil system. In practice, however, a visionary unelected leader can be far better than the best democracy. 

Why not start from this premise: elite intellectuals are a tiny minority; whenever the majority wins, mediocrity usually prevails?

Democracy is ill-suited where the elected representatives from opposing factions don't apply themselves and blindly confirm to their party's view to cancel out each other and so never reach a consensus. The population on the other hand is over reliant on their representatives to decide for them, and so are poorly engaged in regular sociopolitical conversation. 

It requires real awareness and long-term thinking among the people - qualities often absent even in developed countries. Low awareness of long-term public good leads to poor choices and weak decision makers. 

A clear example: UK's elected leaders could not reach consensus on a complex issue and left the momentous Brexit decision to the average street voter, who voted against their own long-term interest. The UK has not recovered since then and has seen seven prime ministers in the decade since the June 2016 Brexit referendum.

Voting rights are akin to giving lollipop-sucking children the power to choose their own babysitter. Such caretakers hand out populist candy whenever the kids demand attention, so they can be left alone. Over time, they begin to serve themselves, not the children. Democracy then becomes an excuse for both rulers and the ruled to avoid accountability.

Democracy with a strong, vigilant opposition that creates internal checks and balances is a brilliant hypothesis. Yet in practice, vigilant opposition often becomes obstructionist and self-interested. 

To counter this, parties resort to hyper-marketing to stay in power, requiring massive, repeated funding. Ruling parties then have little choice but to accept bribes in cash or kind - and return favours. They solicit "donations" and craft policies that benefit their supporters.

A quid pro quo model develops between business and the ruling class. Companies often fund major political parties across the spectrum, forming an informal soft cartel. Parties compete publicly but tacitly cooperate in select areas, to their personal gain and the public's detriment.

Once, one could not criticize a monarchy. Now we can criticize elected leaders - but should we? 

Venting against the government has become a national pastime, with each group viewing issues through its own lens. It is absurd: even with limited knowledge, groups fight like blind men describing an elephant.

The more the mainstream press and social media warriors scream negativity at the elected government without offering workable solutions, the more the ruling class must spend on marketing to create a self-serving counter-narrative and assert relevance. We argue for democracy from the comfort of our living rooms, with hearts anchored in idealism and minds aligned with morality, even when the system fails to deliver its fundamental objective: a welfare state.

Empirical evidence from the world's democracies suggests that the system succeeds only after a nation's per capita GDP crosses USD 8,000. No country has had a smooth transfer of power below that threshold. 

Maslow's hierarchy applies: basic needs and economic security must be met before sophisticated democratic engagement follows.

Those who cite America should remember its democracy evolved over 150 years and remains imperfect. It functions as a two-party regime with large overlaps and few material differences. 

America's rigid, expensive ecosystem makes it difficult for third parties to emerge. Despite the advantage of a global reserve currency, the American system is strained by rising debt that future generations are cursed to repay, and often survives on exploitative wars - actions dictators might avoid for fear of domestic uprisings as everyone can pinpoint the war monger in chief. 

Yet Western powers keep pushing other countries toward democracy, using economic influence, military power, and subverted narratives about democracy's virtues,  while happily cozying up to dictators when it suits them. 

Sadly, India granted adult franchise immediately after independence, when most of the population lacked financial freedom and lived in poverty. Not widely known: Indian women voted in every election before all American women did.

India remained dependent on the West. Nehru delivered his first speech in the language of the erstwhile oppressor, even though 11% were literate then, and hardly spoke English. He borrowed elements of Western constitutions without fully adapting them to local culture and context - a symbol of continued cognitive dependence.

The consequence is that after 75 years, India - the first colony to gain independence and adopt democracy, still lags on many parameters. 

The West thrives not necessarily because of democracy, but because it exploits global trade, currency mechanisms, control of global monetary institutions, veto power at global bodies, and weaknesses it creates in other nations through democracy. 

Is there still hope?

Hopefully, India will move toward a single-party democracy. One can hope that in the next general election the BJP, a nationalist party - emerges as the single largest force with pan-India presence and disproportionately large control of both houses. That would be a blessing.

India has huge potential and a vast domestic market waiting to be unleashed. That could produce near double-digit growth for years, as happened in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia when single parties ruled for two to three decades. China, too, without democracy, eliminated extreme poverty at breakneck speed and, for practical purposes, has become a developed nation. Some Middle Eastern kingdoms also show outcomes that invite envy: you cannot criticize the royalty, yet citizens are not hand-to-mouth, in fact wealthy. 

A strong multiparty democracy can produce the opposite of its intent; "democratic development" often becomes India's oxymoron. 

Some will argue that Singapore, a city-state single-party system - cannot be compared with India, and that a strong democracy ensures checks and balances. But the past has taught us that what we have, simply doesn't work. It is time to apply those lessons and move away from the status quo.

City-states can tolerate some inefficiency in messaging or service delivery because their governments have a clear line of sight and can amend or act quickly. How much harm can inefficient distribution do in such contexts? Governments in Singapore or Dubai can correct course swiftly; one could physically drive across the city to oversee the flaw get fixed. 

Even after decades, India lags in many areas and must catch up fast. For India, it's a race against time to get rich before it gets old. 

It needs bullet-train speed in implementing projects, not obstructionist democracy. For a vast subcontinent, there is even more reason to reduce hurdles and distractions - the mini-mutinies staged by selfish regional parties from all corners. The perpetual dispute between states and the Centre must ebb.

Indians must end opportunistic politics and coalitions of convenience, and free the administration from parties driven only by self-interest, especially the family owned dynasties. India must have compelling central leadership, effective control, and distribution under the oversight of empowered, engaged chief ministers, with minimal implementation lag.

At the least, the citizens should themselves weaken democracy if they are not prepared to eliminate it. The press may remain free but should be subordinated to India's integrity. Singapore law restricts news in the sense that media can publish freely but must accept subordination to the government's purpose and national integrity. Authorities can act if a journalist or media house works against these.

Why? Because such coverage often turns toxic and offends people. 

For anyone to believe that the government and nation are non-living entities is an illusion. 

There is a direct linear psychological correlation between ineffectiveness in performance with nonstop scrutiny and criticism. Average people become the stories they tell themselves, and they tell themselves the negative stories the media sells. Governing or uniting such dispirited, cynical people is then difficult.

Independence of the Election Commission and Supreme Court is possible. The integrity of India should be the fundamental responsibility of all institutions. The single party must still seek the people's confidence every five years. If it fails, a party with fresh ideas can get rejuvenated, rise, and challenge the incumbent.

This alone can resurrect the India of our dreams!