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.

 

*

Vinesh Phogat and The Mules of the Rules

Vinesh Phogat.

Her comeback victory over Yui Susaki and Yusneylis Guzman Lopez on Tuesday propelled her into the final, igniting hopes of India’s first gold medal in wrestling. Vinesh made history by being the first Indian woman wrestler to reach the gold medal bout in the event on Tuesday night.

The nation was euphotic, but everything was shattered in 12 hours.

She was taken off the competition on technical grounds because her weight was 100 grams more than the cut-off weight of 50 Kg in the category she was competing in. She could not take it anymore and declared her retirement from the sport she gave her life to and in a heart-wrenching note on her X handle she posted “Wrestling wrestled a defeat out of me, forgive me maa for not being able to fulfil your dream, I am left with no energy to fight any more.”

She was devastated and with her the whole nation. What happened on the 7th of August 2024 will haunt us for life.

Vinesh was not just any wrestler; she was a fighter the nations looked up to.

She was the face of a mutiny against sexual harassment and injustice long overlooked by the management of Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) who had the support of the high and mighty of the country.

She was the symbol; the hope of the weak and voiceless men and women who suffered the normalised injustice deeply entrenched in the patriarchal systems of our country.

The millions of voices on social media went crazy with cries of injustice, unfairness, sabotage, and synthesised conspiracy theories not because an almost assured gold medal was missed but because a system much larger than her in size kept on crushing her spirit to fight back till she laid dead.

Many of us saw a Joan of Arc in her.

Let’s for a while forget the daggers on her back we as a nation and the governing sports body had gifted her with before she was sent to the Olympics to fight for the country and focus on what rendered her ineligible to fight.

The official statement by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) was cold and clinical akin to the briefly worded cause of death in the death certificate of a person.

But that narration could not hide the struggle our wrestlers go through to qualify to fight in a category. Days of staying off food, and water, sleepless nights of skipping and exercising and cropping her hair to reduce her weight as the last resort and fight in that state.

The fights on the blue mats are not the real fights, what happens to the athletes when the cameras are looking away are the real fights. It's plain inhuman and it's not for the faint-hearted. Salute to those athletes and their parents who not only allow their kids to join the sport but support and encourage them to win and bring laurels for the country.

As per the official procedure at the weighing-in session the athletes, in this case Vinesh had to be of 50 kg or less to qualify for the fight scheduled for the day. Yes, 50.00 kg and she weighed 5.10 kg; that is in excess of 100 grams. The officials gave their verdict as per the rules of the game which nipped her dream in the bud.

Millions of hearts sunk when the news came out, and none could accept the harshness of the verdict, but the officials were cold and nonplussed. No one tries to know who those officials were, but what is being discussed now is the rigidity of the rules. These officials were just the followers of the rules. They just followed what the rule book asked them to do and reported what the calibrated weighing scale displayed.

Check the number and Accept or Reject was their only job.

Our gullible heart fails to accept how the weight of a person can be of a certain kilogram or below that at a certain time of the day. When she was eligible to fight in the previous days how could she be ineligible just because she is 100 grams over the cut-off number? IOA has appealed for the silver medal to be given to her. The results are awaited.

But even if she is given the silver, that’s not going to offer a balm to Vinesh, the fighter who would have preferred to fight for the gold and only settled for the silver after giving her best.

Just not Vinesh, we all have submitted ourselves to the harshness of such cut-offs or complex algorithms to win the race of life as this is the only way to get selected. The process of selection is nothing, but a process of categorization and grouping based on their diverse background like age and weight and many others. And conduct a competition over certain competencies amongst the equals to eliminate many.

No selection system is comprehensive, foolproof or fair to all.

-        Our kids would miss admission into a college of their choice unless they make it to the cut-off list. No test comprehensively evaluates a child’s competencies.

-        Our application for a loan or a credit card either gets accepted or rejected based on our CIBIL scores which are based on your past performance and not based on your intent and ability to pay now.

-        Our existing loan account will be flagged as NPA just because you couldn’t service the EMI for three consecutive months. The system doesn’t consider the macro-economic environment within which we are operating

-        We are not allowed to check in at the airport if we are late by a minute even if the take-off is a good 45 minutes away because the system wouldn’t allow past a particular time.

-        At a blood ethanol level of less than 80 mg, or 0.08% concentration, an individual is not considered to be intoxicated in England but in India, as this legal limit is set at 30 mg or 0.03% you can be penalized for drunken driving. Take it. You have no way of contesting it.

Your loud cry of unfairness in the above situations will land nowhere.

To make the system fair and transparent, the evaluation of a set of competencies depends on a well-researched system of ranking. In management parlance, we call it a Balanced Score Card. And the users of such a card at times helplessly look at its ineffectiveness when it eliminates a talent just because the scorecard speaks otherwise. Government procurement is the biggest victim of such rigidity. They are forced to accept a vendor because his combined technical and commercial score is the highest even if they know that they are heading for a turbulent time with that vendor.

Fierce competition demands determined fighters, determined fighters have higher convictions on their abilities and matching grit and zeal to succeed.

Only the ones who miss the cut-offs by a whisker know the pain they live with throughout their lives. When various tests of life put one in a situation of either a life of glory or a life of anonymity the pain can be devastating. Some give up, accept and live on, some live to fight another day, and some choose to end their fight by ending their lives. We get to hear of dozens of suicides at the coaching centres, in the IITs and in the Rajinder Nagars of our country. Accepting the verdicts of the cut-offs or missing the bus by a small number requires a high degree of emotional intelligence and peer support to accept their shattered hopes and a life of failure and mediocrity.

Can we humanize this selection algorithm? Perhaps not.

We know about the case of Srikanth Bolla of Hyderabad whom none of the coaching centres accepted for the JEE but he was selected by MIT in 2009. The managers of such coaching centres didn’t have the authority to override the set system, the people at MIT took a call.

Can we see such a thing happening in a country of 1.44 billion people where the opportunities are shrinking and the number of people vying for it is increasing exponentially? It’s a stressful and risky job for the selectors too. The fear of being blamed for unfairness and bias for a certain candidate will make them eliminate subjective evaluation and resort to centralised digital evaluation systems and ranking processes knowing fully well that it is not a comprehensive test of one’s merit.

Let’s be prepared to be evaluated by faceless algorithms and be managed by the mules of the rules whose only job is to ferry their output from one point to the next.

 

*