Skip to main content

Majoritarianism is not a crisis of democracy but of liberalism, needs a 'different' query

By Simi Mehta 

We are at a juncture when democracies are increasingly being referred to as majoritarian in the global context. The phenomenon of democracies becoming majoritarian has proliferated across the world, ranging from the rise of Trump in the United States (US), Erdogan in Turkey and, to Modi in India. Therefore, it warrants an interrogation in this situation to understand what it means for a democracy to be majoritarian.
Does this majoritarianism overlap with the idea of an illiberal democracy or is it something else? With this question in mind, a panel discussion on “Are Democracies Mostly Majoritarian?” was organized by the Impact and Policy Research Institute (IMPRI) on January 26, 2021. This lecture was chaired and moderated by Dr Ajay Gudavarthy, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. Panelists included Dr Nicholas Tampio, Professor, Fordham University USA and; Dr Trevor Stack, The School of Language, Literature, Music and Visual Culture, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Dr Ajay Gudavarthy began the discussion by providing different entry points to the most fundamental question of, “What it means to say that democracies are majoritarian?” He defined how democracies are majoritarian is via numerical majority. He argued, “Representative parliamentary democracies are supposed to conjure up these majorities and so it is not the crisis of democracy but of liberalism, which is a different kind of crisis and needs a different kind of interrogation.”
He elaborated the idea of majoritarian in terms of numerical majority comprising socially and economically dominant social groups who forcefully thrust their sectoral interests on the rest of the society through electoral mechanisms or by undermining constitutionalism and liberal institutions.
Further, he remarked that majoritarianism becomes a certain kind of convergence of dominant social vision of dominant social elites (Hindu/Brahminical Hindu), which gets eventually acceptable to a range of social subaltern groups (the Dalits and the OBCs). Here majoritarianism takes a populist turn as this convergence is on the basis of consent rather than coercion.
Wary of the fact that critique of the majority is not historically available, and instead manufactured by current populist regimes, Gudavarthy argued, “All identities are manufactured, and hence there should be no problem with the fact that Hindu as an identity is manufactured in the current context. The only problem one could point towards is that these are manufactured through state or legal mechanisms. So, the assumption that manufacturing larger majoritarian identities necessarily displaces the micro-identities in today’s context of technology, media, representative democracy etc. might be slightly misplaced.”
Another issue raised by Gudavarthy was, “Majoritarianism in a concrete sense is not limited to the ethnic and religious identities but is more about certain kind of new patron-client and patronage networks that are outside state policy, outside state institutions and outside democratic institutions. They are para-legal entities which actually catalyzes crime and corruption in a democracy.”
Gudavarthy further floated the question that whether majoritarianism was actually taking us beyond centrism and leading to the correction of certain lopsided processes that have existed in liberal democracies.
He called this phenomenon as “democratization by default”. He argued that “majoritarianism, even in giving an optics of unsettling all through its anti-elitist, extra-institutional discourse, seems to be opening up new spaces that did not exist in post-independence Indian history for about 50 years.” The questions of the gender issue within the religious minority, or of sub-caste within Dalit and OBCs, or of corrupt regional leaders or the of representation, were certainly not addressed by the old kind of secular constitutionalism.
Prof Nicholas Tampio began by explaining how Donald Trump won the US presidency in 2016 despite losing the popular vote. He argued that Trump received the support of various groups because his views resonated with the popular sentiments about protecting the economy and middle-class jobs. Trump has been recognized as a flag bearer of racism around the globe.
But for Prof Tampio, Trump was more of a populist trying to own the liberals rather than being a hardcore racist. Strong populist leaders like him seek to demonstrate that they will not play by the rules of the liberal elites. He then showed how some Mexican Americans supported Trump despite his call for building a wall to stop illegal immigrants from Latin America. They supported him because of their Christian religious views, opposition to abortion, support for gun rights, and belief that immigrants should come into the country legally. It is misleading to accuse all Trump supporters of being racists.
Prof Tampio highlighted two strategies through which the Democratic Party in the US responded to Trump’s populism. First, Biden has surrounded himself with technocrats with degrees from Ivy League universities. Second, the democrats have adopted a morally righteous tone of talking about certain social issues.
Prof Tampio answered the central concern of the discussion with a viewpoint that “democracy is not majoritarianism, it’s not Trump voters plus one, and it’s not Biden’s voters plus one.” He elaborated John Dewey’s framework of democracy and called it “a way of life, a way of showing people respect”.
He highlighted how in majoritarianism, only the majority has a voice but in a democracy, everybody has a voice: “To have a democratic society you have to listen to people who you disagree with”, he said. 
In majoritarianism, only  majority has a voice, but in a democracy, everybody has a voice: To have a democratic society you have to listen to people who you disagree with
He then put forth the relationship between liberalism and democracy. He argued that, “liberalism meant leaving people alone and separate, letting them be who they are, which Isaiah Berlin called negative freedom.” Therefore, “Democracy is about power and positive freedom. So, in a democracy you want maximum participation of people in the political order”. It is a governmental system with federalism and different avenues of power but it is also a culture in which everyone deserves respect and a chance to express themselves.
Finally, he argued, “Ethics is when you are working on yourself but politics is when you are working with other people”, such that no one is excluded from having a voice. Tampio exhorted leaders, scholars and observers to keep this in mind before redesigning American institutions or rethinking the American culture. He emphasized that the creation of an anti-majoritarianism ethos requires collective practices and habits that encourage a democratic way of being in the world. And hence the big question for him is how to cultivate those democratic habits.
Dr Trevor Stack argued that “when a majority votes for something whether in the election of referenda or the legislature, the majority votes stands for the will of the demos -- the common people. Hence the term majoritarianism is used for governments that claim the majority vote and get an absolute mandate to do as they please and denounce any attempt that limits what they do and especially consider minority interests as anti-democratic”.
He added, “Here majorities shift from issue to issue and from moment to moment such that those in the minority in one instance may find themselves in the majority at another moment. But cultural nationalism as a stronger version of majoritarianism looks to establish more permanent majorities which at the same time gives rise to permanent minorities who find themselves marked off by enduring cultural markers and thus effectively exiled for politics in the long term.”
Stack, drawing inspiration from the works of Prof Gurpreet Mahajan -- an eminent political scientist-- highlighted a fascinating contrast between Canada and India. In Canada, there are fierce controversies over the rights accorded to the francophone and indigenous minorities but what is not disputed is that they are the salient minorities.
In India there is little consensus over who minorities are and if they are worthy of recognition, giving rise to endless claims and counter claims that can only be resolved politically produced in the process over new minorities. The situation is further compounded by the fact that no community could be unambiguously identified as majorities not even the Hindus due to caste and linguistic complications. So, Stack concluded that, “for Prof Mahajan it would seem that until recently India’s problem in that sense has not been the ossification of majorities but on the contrary their radical instability”.
Stack provided a history of Scotland and explained how it was not a majoritarian democracy but at least in theory a representative one as the leaders are elected via proportional representation system. He argued in favour of Hannah Arendt’s model of council democracy that imagines a version of democracy in which minorities are not permanently relegated to the sidelines and policies are decided by forms of consensus.
He also argued that “the long term exiling of minorities from politics through the establishing of enduring majorities is only one of the risks of contemporary electoral democracy. Currently in many parts of the world, savvy electoral operators make a mockery of finance regulation, injecting large amounts of cash of often dubious origin to manufacture electoral majorities”. And this might culminate into deep-rooted crime and corruption, the way it happened in Mexico.
Prof G Haragopal added to the discussion with an intriguing argument that people have mistaken democracy for elections, stating, “In a country like India where there is a multi-party system, now a party which is to get 30-33% votes comes to power and they construct the majority and are supposed to represent the majority even though 67% have not chosen them. These winners then superimpose the concept of majority”.
In the end a broader consensus was generated that there are certain trends which can be observed, identified and theorized but the issue is also quite open-ended with fast changing processes, therefore inviting for more dialogue at this juncture to make sense of the world we live in.

Comments

TRENDING

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Examples of support to Hindu temples, scriptures, saints by 'Muslim' rulers galore

Siya Ram coin issued by Akbar By Bharat Dogra* At a time when the country as well as the world are passing through very difficult times leading to more urgent need for strengthening national unity for meeting several big challenges ahead, unfortunately disputes relating to religious places have been allowed to raise their ugly head once again. It is well-realized by now by many people that it is not historical facts but narrow considerations of political gain and spreading of fanatic ideas of intolerance which are behind such mischief, but due to the increasing threat of mob violence and patronage available at higher levels to groups spreading intolerance many people are reluctant to openly and fearlessly express their views. Hence there is urgent need for broad-based peace committees with wider social support to spread the message of communal harmony and to appeal against the dangers of spreading false messages regarding places of worship which can ultimate

Gyanvapi case: Use of 'illegal' lawfare to keep the communal pot simmering

By Venkatesh Narayanan, Bobby Ramakant, Manoj Sarang* With a steady drumbeat of bad news for the lives of ordinary citizens --  inflation at a multi-year high , rupee at an all-time low , negative job creation and when all forward indicators as seen by industry leaders point to recessionary clouds on the horizon , what’s a serially-incompetent government to do?  Dust out their time-tested-citizen-distraction playbook. The Gyanvapi-Masjid case is all of this -- as a weapon of mass distraction. This zeitgeist of our times is best captured by a recent opinion piece : "The idea is to keep the pot on a perpetual boil, simmering at the top, whirling feverishly beneath. A restless society forever living precariously on the precipice arouses distrst, uneasiness, fear and discomfort, That is a toxic panoply for manufacturing rage, which can then be effortlessly mobilized at short notice. BJP is creating an eco-system of real-time instant delivery of hate-mongers. That is how we are sudde

Targeting mosques, churches: 'Roadmap' for 2025, RSS' centenary year?

416 years old Our Lady of Health Church, Sancoale, Goa  By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*  Fascists use manipulative strategies aimed at whipping up sympathy and support from the majority community, to which they normally ‘belong’. They do so in a variety of insidious and subtle ways. In the past few months, they have gone overboard in their efforts to denigrate and demonize minorities in India, particularly Muslims and Christians. They have spewed hate and divisiveness through their venomous speeches; incited people to violence and have effectively used officialdom to further their vested interests. The results are there for all to see: greater polarisation of the majority community in a country which prided itself for its pluralism and diversity. Their meticulously planned agenda is in order to gain absolute power of the country in the 2024 national elections. More so it is also a roadmap towards 2025 when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) will complete one hundred years of its existence.

Upholding labour rights, Nehruvian scientific temper, Rajni Patel opposed Emergency

By Harsh Thakor*  Rajni Patel, who died 40 years ago, whatever his flaws, had one great quality: his human touch to offer selfless service and ability to galvanise or influence human beings from all walks of life. Few people would ever go out of the way to help someone or serve as selflessly without aim of personal gain. Rajni championed Nehruvian secular ideas and scientific temper. As a master in public relations he revealed utmost humility. As a barrister, he never appeared against the trade unions or workers. A Fabien Socialist he opposed liberal capitalism and radical socialism. Unlike most lawyers, he did not succumb to the lure of amassing wealth. Rajni was born in Sirsa, in Gujarat, on the very day Gandhi set foot on Indian soil, on 9th January, 1915. He gained his baptism through one of Gandhi's speeches calling for the boycott of foreign goods, which was the virtual turning point of his life. Rajni toed Gandhi to organise boycott of foreign goods. Rajni was able to cros

This varsity succumbed to extra-academic mobocracy, 'ignored' Hindutva archives

By Shamsul Islam* Open letter to Sharda University vice-chancellor Sub: Discarding a Question on Linkages of Hindutva with Nazism/Fascism is blatant Academic Dishonesty! Dear Professor Sibaram Khara Saheb, Namaskaar! According to your esteemed University’s portal: “The name of University, 'Sharda' is synonymous to 'Goddess of knowledge and learning-Saraswati'. She is identified with 'veena', an Indian musical instrument and the ‘lotus’, where she resides. The lotus in our logo symbolizes the seat of learning that the University is created for.  "Variety of colours signify the variety of disciplines the university offers and the overlap between petals creating new colours demonstrate the ethos of collaboration between students and teachers of different programme, nationality, creed and colour working towards creating new knowledge…the University's cherished mission to provide education beyond boundaries and to facilitate the students and faculty to achie

Whither climate goal? Increasing reliance on coal 'likely to worsen' India's power crisis

By Shankar Sharma*  Recent news articles, How to shock-proof India’s power sector and Power minister points finger at states for worsening electricity crisis , have highlighted a few current problems for the ongoing power sector issues as in April 2022. However, there is a lot more to it than a few temporary solutions as indicated in the articles. It should also be emphasised that it is techno-economically impossible to completely shock-proof a highly complex and geographically wide-spread vast power network, such as the one in India, which is only getting more and more complex with the passage of each year due to some irrational policies/ practices in the sector. A business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, wherein more and more of conventional technology power plants, including coal power plants, will be added in the near future, will also necessitate the increased complexity in the integrated national grid, and as a result the instances of power shortage/ disruptions can only escalate for

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

A former Modi ally, Prashant Kishor wanted to enter Congress 'on contract, as trader'

By Anand Sahay*  The Congress Party and the election campaigns specialist Prashant Kishor, whose company has done strategic communications for a host of political parties across ideology, should both count themselves lucky that they could not reach an agreement for Kishor to join the party. News reports suggest that the Congress rejected Kishor’s terms. This is not wholly unexpected. People join a party because they are attracted to it, and wish to serve it in any capacity that the party may see fit. But that isn’t Kishor at all. He gave the impression of entering into a contract, as a trader might. If news reports are to be believed, he sought freedom to report directly to party chief Sonia Gandhi, and sought untrammeled control over party communications. When such ideas did not find favour, the consultant withdrew. It is clear he has no particular love for the Congress, and its ideas, ideology and politics. In contrast, look at the key personae in G-23. They

Haven't done a good deed, inner soul is cursing me as sinner: Aurangzeb's last 'will'

Counterview Desk The Tomb of Aurangzeb, the last of the strong Mughal emperors, located in Khuldabad, Aurangabad district, Maharashtra, has this epitaph inscribed on it: "Az tila o nuqreh gar saazand gumbad aghniyaa! Bar mazaar e maa ghareebaan gumbad e gardun bas ast" (the rich may well construct domes of gold and silver on their graves. For the poor folks like me, the sky is enough to shelter my grave).