Democratic Despots

The title ‘Democratic Despot’ of an article can be a bit uncomfortable for us, especially on the 78th Independence Day of the largest democracy comprising 1.45 billion people.

Can a democratic country have a despot or a dictator as its leader? It seems like an oxymoron and an impossible situation.

What tempted me to write this article was while discussing the state of democracy in our neighbouring countries with whom we share strong similarities of physical appearance, language and culture; a dear friend of mine stated that in India things like military dictatorship and pogroms can never happen because our major religion and culture do not lend any legitimacy to such designs and our strong constitution, judiciary, laws would not allow it.

Really? Nothing could have been more ridiculous than these premises itself.

The assumption is that our safeguards are so well established and strong that the state will never allow any democratic institution to exercise arbitrary power beyond the ones vested in it. 

Let’s understand the anatomy of the concept of Democratic Despots or Dictatorship in its connotation of a situation where either by chance a person or a group of persons enjoy unlimited power because there has yet to be an alteration in power since their incumbent government has never lost an election because there was no equivalent alternative or by design by limiting the powers of the other institutions of a state which draws a perimeter to his power and questions his decisions making him more accountable.

Democracy can be parliamentary, semi-presidential, or presidential; dictatorship can also be civilian, military, or royal. Many countries seen as otherwise democratic are dictatorships because there has yet to be an alteration in power since their incumbent government has never lost an election.

When the colonial rule of India ended and on 15th August 1947 the country was declared a sovereign and independent state, it legally and effectively inherited the systems of governance which had taken centuries to mature in the UK. The biggest challenge the newly formed country faced was the merger of hundreds of sovereign princely states into the big country we see today. Our commitment to remain truly democratic was unequivocal and irreversible.

Let us remember how the country whose democratic legacies we inherited and made our own has transitioned from a monarchy that had unbridled power to a parliamentary democracy where the powers are vested in a body comprising of members directly elected by the people and operating within the powers of other institutions who would prevent it from turning arbitrary and despotic.

In the UK, the sovereign (monarch) gradually handed over power to other branches of government through a series of constitutional developments and laws.

Here are some key milestones:

Magna Carta (1215): Limited the monarch's power, establishing the principle of the rule of law and protecting individual rights. English Civil War (1642-1651): Led to the execution of Charles I and the establishment of a republic (Commonwealth of England) under Oliver Cromwell. Glorious Revolution (1688): Saw the overthrow of James II and the ascension of William III and Mary II, who accepted constitutional limitations on their power. Bill of Rights (1689): Further restricted the monarch's power and established certain individual rights. Acts of Union (1707): United England and Scotland under a single government, with the monarch's power bound by constitutional rules. Reform Acts (1832, 1867, 1884): Gradually expanded voting rights and redrew electoral boundaries, reducing the monarch's influence. Parliament Acts (1911, 1949): Limited the monarch's power to delay or veto legislation.

By the mid-20th century, the UK monarch's role had evolved into a largely ceremonial and symbolic position, with most executive powers exercised by the Prime Minister and other elected officials.

Please take note that this process occurred gradually, with the monarch's power evolving over centuries. Today, the UK monarch serves as Head of State but exercises little direct political power.

What is to be learnt from their experience is that whenever they felt that one limb of the state was turning more powerful than it should, they strengthened the safeguards that would prevent it from creating an imbalance. The credit goes to the people who supported it and the strengths of the other institutions who led it.

Do we have such advantages to limit the power of one when he is going despotic and arbitrary?

Without searching far and wide let’s look closely at our state and the centre. In the absence of an equivalent political alternative, we saw an unbridled run of one political party for twenty-four years and the same at the centre. Behind the perception of the great development and general happiness story, the discomfort of the people in accepting too much concentration of power in the hands of the chosen few was demonstrated by reducing their might through electoral means. Just not this our country has seen many attempts in the past to subvert the power of other democratic institutions to remain in power.

In all the cases these attempts were neutralised by the people through the electoral process.

These incidents tell us that the institutional safeguards are not strong enough to offer a bulwark against any attempts to subvert their powers.

Democratic despots refer to leaders who hold democratic elections but also exhibit authoritarian tendencies, suppressing individual rights and freedoms. This concept highlights the tension between democratic processes and autocratic behaviour.

This concept raises important questions about the nature of democracy, limits of power, and internal checks and balances for one component of power to turn cancerous and cross its perimeter and encroach onto others’ powers and his larger accountability.

Some common characteristics of democratic despots include eroding checks and balances, suppressing political opposition, limiting press freedom, undermining independent institutions, and using propaganda to shape public opinion.

Every dictatorship has one obsession – to remain at the apex of the power hierarchy indefinitely. It has no relationship with the route they have taken to reach the position of power. It can be military or also through democratic means. Every such attempt has failed in the past but that does not deter some ambitious individuals or groups from remaining in that position of control as long as possible by using newer strategies.

The earliest attempt at it can be seen in ancient Rome where people were given an abundance of bread and circuses were staged continuously to keep the citizens satiated and entertained. Such strategies are designed to control the evolution of new independent ideas which can pose a threat to the dictator’s power and the forces which may affect the ulterior designs of the dictator. These strategies are implemented by lowering education, limiting culture, censoring information, changing narratives of the past, demolishing contrarian viewpoints and throttling dissent.

It’s a timeless pattern that repeats itself even now.

The question we should ask on this day is, do we see such things happening around us?

If we can see it germinating somewhere and successfully prevent it from striking roots, that act will determine how long we can remain truly democratic and not be under a shadow despot.

 

*