Dialectic Democracy

M C Raj

The practice of governance seems to be as old as human society. Democratic

form of governance has marked the history of many indigenous communities.
Non-discursive praxis of democracy is very much alive in many forms of
governance of indigenous communities in different parts of the world. Even in
the progression of modern democracy discourses on culture developed as a
scientific discipline mainly because indigenous forms of democratic
governance were able to withstand the challenges of industrialization and
modernization without being affected by them. Indigenous people have been
practicing democratic governance without making any deliberation about it,
meaning without making it into an abstract discursive practice. Progression of
post-modern democracies has a specific political trajectory that is most suited
to the economic and social designs of ruling oligarchies in different parts of
the world. Starting from the period of enlightenment and liberalism it has
made rapid strides in replacing Feudalism and Monarchy. In its trajectory it
has re-invented the wheel of exploitation and oppression through the
production of more acceptable and to some extent also mystifying discourses
and paradigms.

Colonial Democracy
‘Power as resistance’ sounded very attractive in as much as resistance was
directed against the praxis of governance in the monarchical and feudalistic
phases of history. While discourses of resistance were loaded with attractive
paradigms of dissolving the concentration of power in the hands of monarchs
and feudal lords, that the ‘resistant powers’ would replace such forms of
governance with more sophisticated accumulation of wealth of nations and
production of weapons of mass destruction was completely camouflaged
under the discourses of democracy. Monarchy and Feudalism became
intolerable ‘nuisance’ in the designs of liberal sharing of the wealth of nations
that were accumulated through the many ‘discoveries’ and subsequent
colonization of nations. Democracy became a very attractive package of
governance for those who wanted to have liberal share of wealth accumulated
through colonizing praxis in other parts of the world. Thus in its very
emergence modern democracy had this irresistible spin of head and tail. Head
for the colonizing democracies and tail for the colonized nations! Governance
as practised by Great Britain and European nations during the different
phases of this emergence of democracy had this stark contradiction. It was
liberalism mixed with a heavy doze of protectionism in the ‘colonizer’ country.
The same proponents of modern democracy in their countries practiced
obsolete forms of oppressive and exploitative governance in ‘colonized’
countries. Clubbing these two dimensions together we arrive at what is
proposed as ‘colonial democracy’.

1
One cannot escape from the embedding of a design of dominance within the
pole of ‘power as resistance’ in political science. This embedding of
dominance within the ambience of resistance is what marked the emergence
of governance through attractive discourses of democracy as well as the
resistance to ‘colonization’ in different nations of modern world. It is a
significant lesson in history that resistance to colonization did not develop in
those countries that clamoured for liberalism and democracy engulfed as they
were with ‘enlightenment’. It is only after unrestricted accumulation of power
and wealth that beautiful theories of democracy developed in the colonizing
nations.
India’s independence struggle under the leadership of MK Gandhi offers an
example of very attractive resistance leading to the establishment of dominant
form of governance. The discourse was not so much how a people should be
governed as who should govern India. The end result of power as resistance,
spearheaded by Gandhi was the answer to who should govern India after the
British left. Power as dominance that is one of the poles in political science
was not replaced as later history showed in India. The same colonial
democracy became the model of governance in India with some
paraphernalic changes in the Instruments and Mechanisms of governance.
The ruling class of India believes in power as dominance as much as its
British counterpart. Though Gandhi raised some issues of the ‘how’ of
governance the cumulative essence of Indian democracy still is a colonial
legacy of which the Indian intelligentsia is very proud and happy.

Deliberative Democracy
Amartya Sen has brought out a volume on the argumentative Indian. The
space that is available in India for argumentation is hailed. Such
argumentation seems to be perched more in romantic branches than in
scientifically tested grounds. The rest of the world has started discoursing on
‘deliberative democracy’. We are beginning to witness here and there formal
exposition of deliberative democracy as the most appropriate form of
democracy in the post-modern period. For one who listens to deliberative
democratic discourses it sounds very enterprising. Many who have read
argumentative Indian, coming as it is from Amartya Sen develop an elated
sense of intellectualism. Political space created in both these discourses is
problematic for the progression of democracy to the end users of the
Instruments and Mechanisms of governance.
Argumentation and deliberation are quite significant in the development of
mature democracy, provided one does not ignore the huge void that both can
create in the praxis of democracy. Particular sections of society in a
democracy, especially those who have the reins of power to govern do not
grudge a space for argumentation and deliberation as long as it does not
threaten their hold on their dominant power. They can camouflage the deep
pitfalls in procedural democracy by even promoting argumentation and
deliberation as the prerogative of the privileged. The intelligentsia in any
country can easily indulge itself in these attractions leaving substantial and

2
procedural democracies to peripheral praxis. Availability of argumentative
space and deliberative democracy caters to their palate unendingly. Their
indulgence is what suits the designs of the ruling elite in any country. Foucault
argues that more than solutions to problems it is problematizing that matters
most. People should be able to problematize instead of offering solutions. In
fact, according to him problematizing is itself a solution to problems. In the
development of discursive practices over the past many centuries starting
from the period of enlightenment, deliberative democracy is only next logical
phase. It is an elite form of democracy and will naturally hesitate to take a
stand in favour of all sections of people for whom democracy is meant.

Dialectic Democracy
While the ruling oligarchies have provided much space for argumentation and
deliberation they have been constantly threatened by what I term as ‘Dialectic
Democracy’.
Dialectic democracy is one that evolves Instruments and Mechanisms of
governance in congruence with the synthesis that is arrived at as a
consequence of the movement of thesis and anti-thesis. It is a progression in
history. Its prerequisite is adequate space for differing worldviews and
practices that may or may not find a place in argumentation and deliberation.
While deliberative democracy preconditions itself by the existence of cognitive
knowledge dialectic democracy will be effective even with empirical
knowledge without necessarily precluding cognition. In as much as
deliberative democracy requires sophistication in terms of knowledge and
communicative language, dialectic democracy satisfies itself with organic
evolution of instruments and mechanisms of governance based on their
communicative competence. Forms of democracy that exists in many
indigenous communities do not posses the sophistication of argumentation
and deliberation. However, they can claim to be the original progenitors of a
thesis of democracy that developed without any necessity to be an antithesis
of anything else. To be in the trajectory of the dialectic movement of thesis
and antithesis its praxis is good enough. The very fact that indigenous people
in different parts of the world practice different forms of democracy poses a
dialectic challenge to the discourses, argumentation and deliberation that are
developed in the progression of modern democracy.
Dialectic democracy does not confine itself to mere argumentation. Unlike
deliberative democracy the validity of dialectic democracy is derived from its
procedural democracy. In fact the substance of many indigenous democracy
is drawn more from its praxis and less from its deliberation. Procedural
democracy poses the stiffest challenge to the ruling oligarchies as it is not
confined to the elites but is spread out into the practicing communities of
people. Lacking the ability to proceed with the dialectics of the indigenous
communities, fine-tuned into argumentation by intellectuals of the indigenous
communities dominant groups often take recourse to subjugation of counter
thesis. Gandhi for example was not willing to enter into a dialectics with Dr.
Ambedkar on the question of separate electorate for the Dalit people. New

3
Zealand has recognized the need for progress in democracy through dialectic
movement and has given space to the Maori people to have separate
electorate. Norway, Sweden and Finland have gone many steps further and
have set up a separate Parliament to the indigenous Sami people. Gandhi
simply subverted the progression of dialectics through his notorious fast unto
death against the thesis of Ambedkar that Dalit people should have separate
electorate. He used the iron fist of his moral authority to obliterate the thesis of
Ambedkar and made him accept Gandhi’s own anti-thesis, which is
reservation.
All over the world ruling oligarchies have a limited level of tolerance towards
dialectic movement and its consequent synthesis in society. This is because
their agenda of progress is set dominantly and they perceive dialectic not as
progress but as a blockade to their designs of progress. The blockade to
dialectic movement in dominant societies is wrought generally in two ways.
The first way that the dominant society takes recourse to, including the
discursive elites, is to turn a deaf ear to counter thesis or to original thesis that
existed much before power was vested in its hands. Both the intelligentsia
and the governing forces feign calculated ignorance of either the existence or
the emergence of anti-thesis either through a praxis or through a discourse. If
this does not work the ruling elite takes recourse to use of brute power, often
blindly oppressive armed forces, to obliterate any possible anti-thesis. The
intellectual elites in such cases take recourse to ascriptive practices to
invalidate the legitimacy of anti-thesis. The ruling elite finds support in such
ascriptions and makes use of them as the legitimization for use of blind force.
The government of India has further embellished the Gandhian model by
subjugating the Tribal people of the North Eastern States through the Armed
Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and by making unrestricted space
available to the Indian Army for the exercise of brute power. Irom Sharmila of
Manipur has developed a dialectics with the Indian democracy not through
argumentation and deliberation but through her very bold act of fasting unto
death for the withdrawal of AFSPA. That India has not yet ratified ILO 106 is a
clear indication of the arrogance of ‘power as dominance’ not to enter into any
dialectic movement within the ambience of democracy. That India has not yet
removed untouchability from the face of India despite the loud profession of
the Constitution, is another glaring evidence of its callous subjugation of the
Dalit thesis towards a meaningful democracy.
It is one of the biggest advantages in dialectic democracy that one can
develop either a thesis or an anti-thesis without necessarily developing a
discourse, argumentation or deliberation. It sounds very romantic to think of
India having liberal space for argumentation and deliberative democracy. But
with the type of illiteracy prevalent within its borders Indian ruling coterie can
very easily absolve itself of its subtle subversion of democracy by subscribing
to the argumentative Indian and deliberative democracy. One must also
acknowledge here that deliberative democracy has not yet come out with its
congruent procedures.
Deliberative democracy however, has many advantages. Certain schools of
electoral reforms in India are focusing on reduction of corruption, less use of

4
muscle power, money power, restricting space for criminals to contest
elections etc. They are highly argumentative and deliberative within the
existing democratic framework. Their deliberations are heavily concentrated
on procedural democracy. This is a much-needed dimension within the praxis
of given democracy. However, ultimately when such argumentation and
deliberation succeed within the given framework of procedural democracy
they would have only strengthened the quality of existing democracy which
has a history of serving the needs of the ruling elite, in other words serving the
needs of those who believe in ‘power as dominance’. Most other countries in
the world have already reformed their electoral systems towards a
Proportionate Representation in their democratic praxis. It looks as if those
countries like the United States, United Kingdom and India who have proven
dominant streak of governance are still very reluctant to reform their electoral
systems that will give representation to historically suppressed people. These
three countries serve as the benchmark of racial slavery, colonial exploitation
and caste oppression.

CERI
There are other schools such as the Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India
(CERI) whose efforts are focused on dialectic democracy and congruent
procedural democracy. While not discounting the significance of deliberative
democracy they move a step further to a dialectic movement in democratic
theory and practice. By adding a third pole to political theory, ‘power as
participation’ they have also challenged the validity of praxis of democracy in
India through the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system. Their thesis is
that Indian democracy should take recourse to Proportionate Electoral System
and develop its congruent procedures. This thesis is a veritable and
democratic alternative to draconian measures such as AFSPA. Indian
government will do well to acknowledge the need for space in governance for
dialectic democracy by replacing its FPTP electoral system with Proportionate
Electoral System. A synthesis that is arrived at through such dialectic
democracy will be much more lasting and peaceful than suppressing the
legitimate democratic aspirations of the indigenous people of the North East,
the Dalits all over India and the religious minorities.