Problem with democracy

There is little qualm with a form of governance that is supposed to be “for the people, of the people and by the people”. The chant is so heroic it is almost impossible to challenge the one word it defines – democracy. All the more so, when it is something chanted by the masses, the majority. Yet, the problem with democracy (amongst, arguably, a short but poignant list of others) is that bit alone, that democracy is steered by the sentiment of the majority.

While few, including myself, would vote to be subjects rather than citizens, I cannot help but ponder the objective of being a citizen who casts ballots as though that were both the means and the end, as though that were adequate expression of freedom and act of responsibility, and most of all, as though the whims of the majority are always what ought to be.

You may recall teenage years when you wanted ridiculously over-priced jeans or fashionable but impractical shoes, it went nowhere with parents. Whining “But, all my friends are wearing it” was never enough. The rhetoric question in response would always be, “If all your friends jump off of the cliff, will you too?” Tagging the crowd was not the answer then.

However, somewhere in history, when we started overthrowing monarchies and dynasties that repeatedly sought what was best for them and not the people, we seem to have also shifted to seeking what the majority want, rather than what the majority ought to want. Since, garnering the approval of the majority was much more feasible, desirable and measurable, relying on ballots and votes became not just the norm, but the law too.

Without claiming democratic values such as universal suffrage is wrong, it is also worth arguing that votes alone may not be what is right. Jean Jacques Rousseau, a core social contract theorist, explored the notion of the “general will”.

Rousseau blamed people for their miserable state, but also deemed them capable of restoring society to its former state (one that is presumably absent of dependency, ownership of property and the need for pity). Rousseau seems to insist that the social contract necessary to re-instill society to its former glory ought to be between all members in society. Such general will unfortunately could be the will of one or few or many. But a will without which redeeming society would be impossible.

If that sounds confusing, which it is, a simplistic interpretation of Rousseau’s general will would be to say that the will that is the real or the right one is to be followed. The general will, unfortunately, may only be expressed and promoted by a few. In other words, the general will may not be that of the majority.

We seem to have also shifted to seeking what the majority want, rather than what the majority ought to want.

In a democracy-obsessed era where the ballot best represents democratic ideals and values, Rousseau’s point is worth considering: Simply seeking what the majority want, may not be what is best, but it is what all need to want.

Rousseau unfortunately does not prescribe the method to effectively extract the general will of the people, but suffice to say him writing that just one or a few may support it is enough to convince me that the majority may not always be worth focusing on.

Considering the uniquely diverse country we call our own, it’s impossible to trust what the “majority” would vote for, time and again. Thankfully, democracy also makes room for debate and discourse. It ensures rights and instills a value for freedom and fairness.

If the beauty of democracy was that the majority voted as they wanted and promoted their interests alone, the problem with the majority would be difficult to address. Fortunately, the beauty of democracy does not lie in free will, but general will. A will that can be achieved as times, challenges and priorities change, which they inevitably will.

As Nepal continues to craft its social contract, the constitution, we are forced to delve into territories Rousseau did not consider. He did not provide a manual with clear instructions that would help us identify our general will. Instead, our vested interests, that are contentious and of historic significance, is demonstrative of how the general will needing to be universal is difficult to comprehend.

But, if nothing else, it is illustrative of the need to go beyond the majority alone. The beauty of democracy is that it ought to not just address, but prioritize the plight of the minority - whether a community is minority in terms of gender, sexuality, race, caste, religion, socio-income group and such.

My track team coach often said, “We are only as strong as our weakest link” and how could it be less true for a large social structure, a state? The majority may get to decide, but the minority is who needs to considered when a decision is being made.

sradda.thapa@gmail.com