Post liberal democracy in offing

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Democracy has evolved as a modern political lingua franca in the contemporary world. There is no question and doubt about the validity of democracy. Democracy has to stay and thrive if the world and society is to remain civilized, peaceful and competitive. Only in the barbaric society, can democracy lose its value and significance.

 Democracy is people’s polity in which government is run and managed by the representatives of the people.  Accordingly the democratic political system and the people in the helms of affairs work for the general interest of the electorates—the people.  People take ownership of such type of government and also take active part in the governance. It is this reason why democracy is called ‘the government of the people, for the people and by the people’ because it is composed of the representatives of the people, works for the interest of the people and it is governed by the people. Democratic polity has earned legitimacy and enjoyed popular attraction because of its nature and its vision and its people’s-based focus.

In the present day world, no sane person can ever condemn and deny democracy. But democracy has been and is being defined by different people and different groups in different tone and manner. Each person and group defines democracy to suit one’s own interest. As a result, the very concept of democracy is being vulgarized and distorted. Even great dictators claim to be the true champion of democracy and they use the platform of democracy to rise to power. There are instances that once they reach the top echelon of political power, they soon turn into notorious dictator and enemy of the people and democracy. Even Adolf Hitler had risen to power as a popular leader of German people but he is now known as the ugliest of the humankind who is responsible of killing hundreds of thousands innocent civilians in Nazi holocaust during the Second World War. Ferdinand Marcos of Philippines was at one time most popular leader and icon of democracy. As the days and years of his iron fist rules progressed, he became a symbol of tyranny and treachery not only in the Philippines but also in the entire world. Similar case was with Saddam Husain of Iraq. Even in our own country in the past, the kings and rulers often tried to give democratic color to the absolute monarchical regimes under the banner of Panchayat system. The kings and their henchpersons distorted the old concept of Panchayat and gave it a bad name. The concept of Panchayat had long been in our society as a system to guide the society in a more democratic way. In a way, Panchayat in the old days used to be like direct democracy, which was once used in Athens, Greece—the mother of modern democracy.

The concept of Panchayat was misused when the absolute monarchical system that was imposed by the king Mahendra in December 1960. The then monarch staged a bloodless coup with active backing of the army that disbanded the multi-party democracy and democratically elected government, arrested and jailed the popularly elected Prime Minister and several other leaders and ultimately imposed the self-styled Panchayat system, which had summarily denied all civil and political rights of the people. The king and their loyalists started to defend dictatorial move under the façade of Panchayat because this used to be a popular term among the Nepalese especially in the rural areas.  The kings and rulers tried defend the Panchayat as being rooted in Nepal’s soil. But this was only a trick to give legitimacy to the king’s dictatorship and hoodwink the people. However, a sense of hatred crept into the mind of the people against the Panchayat soon after it was politically misused by the king. In fact, Panchayat was neither a political system nor could this be a basis for any kind of political set up but merely a system for conflict management at the local level and maintain harmony, order and co-existence in the local level.

It is not important as to who raises the specter of democracy but more important is who remains loyal to his or her ideals and principles one champions. There are great leaders in the world who sacrificed their life for the cause of the country, people and democracy. These leaders have been revered as people’s savior and they will continue to be revered and remembered for years, decades and centuries to come. Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln alike are the ones they fought for liberal democracy and freedom of the people from chains of exploitation, discrimination and oppression. Similarly, there are other types of people, who also fought for people’s rights, welfare and livelihood and they succeeded in their mission. This breed of people are Karl Marx, Vladmir I Lenin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro and some others, who are remembered and respected for their contribution to a different type of democratic polity.

Whether it is democracy or no democracy, the political system or government of any kind is the dictatorship of a one section of the people over the other.  In liberal democracy that western capitalist countries champion, majority rules over minority. The majority is ascertained through election held on the basis of adult franchise. The concept is definitely noble because the party, group or an individual who commands the support of most people is entitled to exercise state power. But election systems are such that not all parties or individuals get majority in real sense. Nowhere in the world has any party or candidate won absolute majority. Instead, the party and individual that gets the most votes out of the contesting parties or candidates is declared winner and is entitled to rule. In the first lace, not all eligible voters take part in the elections. The voters’ turn out is always below 50 per cent in the western developed democracies and slightly over 50 per cent in the developing democracies. When the total votes cast is less than 50 per cent, how can the candidate or party that wins the most votes can get majority. In such political and electoral system, minority rules the majority. If the yardstick of democracy is ‘the majority rules the minority’, can this system be called a genuine democracy?

There might be logics and arguments for and against it. Some argue that the state cannot coerce the people to participate in the voting just to ensure that there is high voters’ turn out. According to them, if the people do not take part, it is not the fault of the state or the system because democracy always grants the people with free choices including the right not to vote as well. In recent years and decades, people’s apathy towards the political and electoral system under liberal (capitalist) democracy is growing, which has been further deepened and intensified by the global financial crisis and recession. The occupy movements in the Western capitalist countries are its manifestations and people in the West are now  slowly believing that capitalist system is in crisis and the cause of crisis is capitalism itself. Thus people are slowly trying to seek an alternative political and economic model.

In terms of political ideology and economic logic, there exists an alternative political model—a communist model.  This model was theoretically propounded by Karl Marx and practically applied first time in Russia by Lenin after the success of a mass insurrection popularly known as the October Revolution in 1917. Later several countries followed suit in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Mao Zedong established a communist regime in China after 1949 revolution. The communist models champion the cause of the proletariat, peasants, poor and working class people and they want the state power at the hand of the working class people. According to them, the society is class-based and two distinct classes—capitalist/bourgeoisie and working class or proletariats— exist. Under communist philosophy, the poor and working class people are always in the overwhelming majority and real democracy can be established only when the state power is at the hand of the proletariats and the working class. 

Whatever the logic and counter logics of these two rival sets of political ideologies and systems—liberal democracy and communist philosophy, the old models of political systems have definitely failed. The political developments and economic crises we have witnessed in the recent years are indicative of the fact that the world is slowly but steadily moving and oriented towards an era of post- democracy. The hitherto models of democracy, be it the western style of liberal (capitalist)democracy or new democracy ( communist) or socialist system advocated have failed to and can no longer address the newer challenges that have afflicted the global society and economy, which is evidenced in the present global crisis. A new version of political system is, thus, required which may be called the phase of post-democracy. Thus, the world is clearly heading towards post-democracy era which is human, just, and also can ensure people’s fundamental freedoms.