Consider this: there was a grand ship in the depths of the ocean, directed by a skilled captain who understood the stars, the winds, and the currents. Suddenly, a group of sailors, in their fervor for equality and participation, began questioning the authority of their captain. “Why should he alone decide our course?” they thought. “We will have a vote!” And so, the election began. Their leader was chosen based on compelling stories and lavish flattery but without the necessary skills. The result? The ship encountered storms and treacherous waters. In the end, the crew admitted to their poor choice.
Plato used this analogy as a powerful metaphor to describe the perils of democracy. Just like a ship cannot be navigated based on the whims and desires of the sailors, how can a state be ruled on popular sentiments?
In the present climate, however, even the slightest critique of democracy is deemed unwarranted. And even though democratic systems have their benefits and might be the best practical option available, they are not immune to criticism.
Democracy – derived from “Demos” (people) and “Kratos” (power) – is a game of numbers. The person who wins the support of the largest faction, often done by painting grandiose visions of national greatness or imminent threats, comes to power. But this game can be dangerous and lead to tyranny and oppression.
For Plato, this tyranny was embodied in the death of his beloved teacher, Socrates, who was condemned to death by an open and democratic court. The danger, however, is not two-millennia old. The world hasn’t forgotten how the Reichstag Parliament, which represented the German people, sanctioned the atrocities of the Third Reich. Even today, the Modi government is actively endangering the minority communities in India. The surge in anti-Muslim violence, passage of discriminatory laws, and heightened restrictions on other minority groups, including Christians and Dalits, highlight a democracy failing to curb the prejudicial excesses of the majority.
But the issue does not end here. This numbers game can also manifest an irrationality that endangers even those who champion it. Take Zimbabwe of the 1980s. The public was captivated by the charismatic Robert Mugabe’s populist promises of land redistribution from white commercial farmers to black Zimbabweans. But once this played out, it led to a collapse in commercial agriculture, dramatically declining agricultural output and causing severe food shortages. The once-thriving agricultural sector, critical for Zimbabwe’s economy, was decimated, leading to widespread hunger and economic decline.
Ironically, sometimes, democracy itself undermines democracy. The Reichstag, in 1933, passed the Enabling Act, which allowed the Reich government to issue laws without its consent. Thus, a Parliament surrendered its powers to a single group, facilitating the establishment of a democratic dictatorship – quite oxymoronic indeed. Even In the aftermath of the recent General Election in India, Rahul Gandhi proudly stated that he had safeguarded India’s democracy by thwarting Modi’s attempt to gain a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Why does this happen, though? Is there something inherently wrong with the collective rule of the people?
Plato believed that everyone must do what they are meant to do without interfering in other people’s work – the ultimate form of justice. This is contingent upon their natural aptitude. And so, a shoemaker must only make shoes, while a barber must exclusively be concerned with cutting hair. It only happens that when ordinary people, swayed by demagoguery, start making political decisions, things go wrong.
But what alternative do we have? Plato’s utopia of a philosopher king is quite impractical. Monarchy, too, is undesirable because then the people’s fate would be left to the whims of a single person. Oligarchies, dictatorships, and the like warrant similar criticism. It seems we are stuck with democracy, but improvements can be made and have been made.
One such improvement is recognizing that some basic and natural human rights cannot be alienated from individuals under any circumstances. These rights are often integrated into the Constitution under the chapter “Fundamental Rights.” A typical Constitution similarly contains other significant provisions, like the independence of the judiciary. Such provisions bring majoritarian excesses under check. Setting rigorous criteria under which to amend the Constitution further solidifies these protections. A constitutional amendment in the United States, for example, requires approval by a two-thirds majority in both congressional houses and subsequent ratification by two-thirds of the 50 states. Similarly, having a bicameral legislature ensures a more rigorous check on the populist tendencies of the majority. Pakistan’s Senate, comprising equal representation from all provinces, is a means of limiting excesses of the Punjabi Parliamentarians. Reserved seats for women and non-Muslims play a similar contributing factor. And even if, let’s say, the majority is so large in numbers that it crosses the required threshold to pass a constitutional amendment, the judiciary comes into action. Through judicial review of constitutional amendments, a phenomenon called “unconstitutional constitutional amendments,” they ensure that the legislature does not become all-powerful. The Indian Supreme Court, for example, has maintained that the separation of powers, the secular character of the state, and the harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), inter alia, form the “basic structure” of the Constitution, cannot be amended. However, countering populism through such measures is not only anti-democratic (defeating the purpose) but empowers the judges to approve important political decisions, thus forming a dictatorship of the judiciary.
And so, democracy, despite all its flaws, is constantly evolving and striving to improve. Yet, the inherent contradictions in its nature cannot be ignored: that sheer numbers can lead to both oppression and irrationality. The Nazi experience is still alive in the world’s memory. But if not democracy, then what?
