Democracy and Dissent

As I write this post, a lot is happening in the world. Tunisia recently saw its people force its President to flee the nation and thus usher a new era of welfare and development policies. Egypt is following suit as thousands of people protest on streets against the President Hosni Mubarak who has become a dictator. The oppressive regime of 30 years has infuriated the people to rise against him. As of now, Mr Mubarak is holding to it and has been unrelenting to the demands of the protestors. There is a clampdown including disruption of internet, strict actions against protestors and any action that could intimidate the people. They are projecting a state in chaos if the Mubarak Government concedes to their demand. While the face-off between the two sides continue, we would have to wait and watch what comes out of this.

This leads to some serious questions. Was it some recent incidences which led to the current Egyptian revolution or was it a process of accumulated grievances. If the people had found the rule oppressive from early on, why did it take 30 years for them to raise their voices. What defines a true mass movement ? Is the current Egyptian struggle a mass movement ? How does a government differentiate when the dissent has spread enough among the people to allow the government function as it used to do.

In general, it also creates a dilemma among minds of people whom to support especially when it is difficult to differentiate between truth and lies. As diplomacy and corporate interests control the media, it is almost impossible to know what’s the actual sentiment on grounds. With internet made defunct, the authorities have eliminated whatever little voice the individuals had.

As the world view is concerned, most people are definitely concerned of human rights and empathise with the suffering masses no matter where they are. Democracy allows us to dissent with others’ views. It gives us a means to voice our opinions. However, it is also a tricky tool as the people in power interpret and use it according to their whims. Mostly, a majority view is considered supreme. However, a true democracy is one where there is rational discussion, everyone’s grievances are heard and a consensus is arrived where the whole society benefits. But sometimes, its the majority decision that is accepted by those in power. And this is where people are in a dilemma.

Should we support Pakistani majority which does not want any change in blasphemy laws or the liberals who find it against human rights?

Should we support the Kalahari bushmen who refused to move away from the game reserve where they have been living for generations or the Botswana government which wishes to use the mineral wealth beneath for the development of the nation?

Or more locally in India, should we support the government and the corporates who want to exploit the mineral wealth, the environmentalists and the tribal who are against destruction of natural habitat (something which is gradually diminishing in our tryst with development and nonchalance on environmental issues)?

Such cases point to the clash of the ideas. Development or environment, religious beliefs or a more liberal and secular society, the rights of one versus the aspirations of thousands.

However, we need not be disheartened because while democracy gives the right to dissent, it allows for consensus too. In most of these conflicts, informed, rational and empathic discussions could lead to a middle way – one which balances the aspirations of two sides. This consensus-building is of course difficult and one might interpret as failure of democracy in decision-making but it’s not a failure, rather a way of sustainable growth. Imagine how many people’s aspirations would have been crushed if we were not a democracy.

Thus, we need to strengthen our democracy and ensure no one is wronged. The starting point is of course dissent.

Do you disagree with me ?