QUESTION: Many recent incidents in our state, Kerala prompt me to think about the meanness of our political leaders. It seems that the rulers of the country become more intolerant to the voice of dissent and they brood the culture of flattering, nepotism and favouritism. What does it signify?  – Jose Antony

Answer: Saji Mathew Kanayankal CST

Your question prompts me to think of one of the recent articles of Ramachandra Guha in Mathrubhoomi Weekly (in Malayalam), ‘One Modi and Seven State Modis.’ In this article, he narrates how the head of governments, whether it is the central government or various states, have been slaughtering the great ethos of democracy in our country. The article begins with a reference to the speech of Dr S Swaminathan, who addressed the students of Annamalai University in 1938. In his speech, Dr Swaminathan admired the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, who was leading the Indian independent struggle with farsightedness, promoting the integrity of the country. According to him, Gandhiji was open enough to accommodate others, accept critical views and he was ready to incorporate different socio-cultural and religious realities of the country. There was also a good number of second-raw leaders, who were able to lead the country. In the speech, he also warned about another kind of leadership, which does not allow others to grow under their leadership. Such leaders do not like any kind of criticism, but they prefer some blind followers who act as if a robot. He compared them to a Tamarind tree, though it is good and useful, it does not allow any small plants to grow underneath. In the speech, Dr Swaminathan clearly explained the futility of ‘superman’ in India. We need leaders who welcome criticisms and are ready to make changes for the welfare of the country and people. However, the picture around us today is not hopeful as we expect from a democratic system.

The Third Wave Autocratisation?

A quite number of scholars believe that an unprecedented high number of democracies all over the world are underway towards the next wave of autocratisation, for we can see a lot of similarities between the present-day events with that of the events in 1930s. The democratic breakdown of 1930s was not an impact of any kind of military invasion or mass movements, rather it was actualised by the rise of anti-democratic demagogues. If democracy falls through any sudden incidents, it is easy to recognise it and people can understand its impact seriously. However, some scholars have the opinion that democracy is more powerful than in the early 1930s and we do not have any clear evidence for challenging the established democratic system. The democratic state institutions are strong enough to protect it from the various ‘complications’ of today. Since the world is quite aware of the anti-human impact of totalitarian regime, it will never fall into the same pit.

However, if we closely observe various movements of many states all over the world, we can see the emergence of political insanity within the frame of ‘rising populism.’ In most of the countries, the multi-party regimes slowly become less meaningful in practice and instead of a system or political party, the politics is moving around the individuals. The conceptualisation of electoral democracy as “polyarchy” (Rober H Dal, ‘On Democracy’), which is actualised through clean elections, freedom of association, universal suffrage, elected executive, freedom of expression and alternative sources of information is slowly fading away from the mainstream of our country. When the power concentrates in the hands of a singular leader, the democratic institutions erode their functions and the elected executives are weakened.

Seven Ways of Losing a Country

In her book ‘How to Lose a Country’ (2019), Eacy Temelkuran, explains seven ways of creeping dictatorship into the system of a democratic nation, within the background of Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This book narrates various ways of social and political systems of the populist leaders in creating an authoritarian state in which democracy, freedom of speech, and security of the vulnerable people are eroded for the sake of a single man’s ‘high’ profile. As she tells, this book is an attempt “to draw lessons from the process, for the benefit of the rest of the world.”

The First step is the creation of a movement, which exploits the religious, cultural or political identity of the people and divides the whole state between ‘us and them’ or the ‘real people of the country’ and others. If there be real people, there are also unreal people. The populist leader takes advantage of the socio-cultural and religious identity of the majority and applies it very tactically to politics through secrecy, deception, and underground conspiracy. They convince the majority that they are ‘authentic owners’ of the land, but at present, they are unjustly marginalised in their own country by assorted conspiracies. The real people are victimised! Since the real people are to be respected, their leader is to be respected and any kind of criticism against the leader will be deployed as an insult against the entire country! The leader claims and behaves as if the sole representative of the entire nation, and the person is thus identified with the nation.

The second is the assault on rationality and on language. In this process, new meanings are thrust upon old terms and argument is replaced by aggressive slogans. These aggressive slogans may help the extremist to overwhelm many hidden agendas and to move the general public with certain emotions. They use coarsened language for the actualisation of their proposed plans. As intolerant to critical opinions, they may oppress all kinds of dissidents with all possible means. For them, all sorts of critical voices are coming from an enemy of the ‘real people’. By concocting self-serving tales and making them into official history the whole nation is infantilised.

The third is the removal of ‘all shame’ and the establishment of post-truth in the common sphere of society. According to her, in the name of authentic indigeneity, the leaders shed all shame and decency and also teach their followers to do so. While the age-old monopoly of creating the truth weakens, the authority of science, common sense and basic moral consensus will be looted by the ignorant. “Eventually the armies of ‘alternative truth’ became strong enough to change political realities through lies, and to build what felt like new countries out of nonsense.” One of the important observations she makes at this level is the change that occurred in the public sphere as well as in religion. For example, ‘how to be a good person’ was the giant philosophical query in the 1980s and most political leaders framed their policies based on this premise. But now it has paved the way for certain temporal gains. Similarly, “religion itself was clipped and cropped into market-friendly ‘spiritualties.” Here we are confronted with two important questions: “When morality is exiled from public life and isolated in the private space of the individual, to be enjoyed only at certain times in our day, how can we know with any certainty that shame and mercy are shared concepts? And how can we convince people not to commit evil in those realms of public life from which law enforcement is absent?”

The next stage is the gradual dismantlement of judicial and political institutions. The weakening of all the constitutional bodies that are intended to act as checks and balances on executive power, including the judiciary, the media and the Constitution makes the situation worsen. The country is identified with an individual (the populist leader) and any kind of criticism against him/her is pictured as an attack on the identity of the country. On the one hand, the populist leader selects some media to propagate his ideologies and build up his image and offers them enormous freedom. On the other side, the critical voices of the media will be controlled or banned in the name of national interest. The lobbying interest and unfair influence of the ruling regime further handicap the integrity of a healthy democracy. Along with capturing the democratic institutions, we can also observe the increasing influence of a few big entrepreneurs and corporates in the economic system of the country. Policies are formed according to their interests.

The fifth step is the designing of new citizens, who will be pre-calibrated to the new normalcy that has been speedily established, shrugging off the weight of history. It includes their treatment of the opposition, the women, the indigenous people and different minorities in the country. Among the many slogans, the most popular is ‘welcome to leave.’ It simply means, that if someone is not accepting the new ethos of the country, they are free to leave it without hesitation. Due to increased polarisation, even the most minimal consensus evades from daily life. Whenever harassment occurs against minority, or the majoritarian mob arracks due to hate or enmity, the leader may appear with a note of apology and minimise the crime as an ‘isolated event.’ Sometimes we can see the awful justification for such acts of atrocities and crimes.

The sixth and the seventh ways are the final stages. The populist leader reduces all liberal and secular thinking persons to a stage of irrelevance and despair where they can only “laugh at the horror” that their country has become. Then finally he builds up ‘a new country,’ after crushing all possible sources of resistance to their agendas. In her work, Temelkuran narrates a lot of examples from Turkey and uses many other examples from the US, the UK, Russia and some other parts of the world. While looking at the different activities of Modi and the ‘Modis of the states,’ we do presume the threat to the country.

It requires us to be vigilant in midst of the political changes in our country and be aware of the changing scenario. If we fail to react at a proper time, we will be silenced in the near future. In a similar political scenario, Max Weber requests the people of his country to be alert and proactive toward the wellbeing of the entire society. As he argues; “those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes.” It requires us to be more authentic, corrective and proactive in the face of present political insanity. Temelkuran concludes: “If we are not politically active or reactive, then the act of understanding turns into only the expression and exchange of emotional responses. Our reactions gradually retreat to become nothing more than a sad cabaret.”