The Clinton-Trump Tradeoff Is Bad PR For Democracy, But Hardly A Clinching Argument Against It

This piece was first published here

Alexis de Tocqueville, the French philosopher travelled through America in the first half of the 19th Century. In his seminal work ‘Democracy in America’ he writes, “I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.” The American public can take solace from that quote and hope that the next time around they need not face the ignominy of choosing between a crony and a sleazeball for president.

The current Presidential race, which the Guardian had called the “dumpster fire of an election”, would have definitely aroused its share of smirks and guffaws in the authoritarian states like China and Russia. As if the character of the contenders of the top job in the country would be enough to cudgel democracy itself.

While the image of the oldest democracy is in tatters, the largest democracy lived up to the hype of democracy being the great emancipator, by propelling an erstwhile tea-seller from among the lowest sections of the society, to the top job. While Indians can feel justifiably proud of their democracy and its the recent success, it would be prudent to remember that the same setup produced a ‘lame duck prime minister’ with the country being governed for a decade by an unelected super prime minister. In the same vein, Americans have to remember in these gloomy autumn days that Lincoln and the Roosevelts were produced by the same system.

The nature of open democratic systems is such that there might be short term fluxes and some local minima, but in general it is an upward going graph. Course correction and rejuvenation happen continually. The government gets its moral legitimacy when the renewal of the executive and legislature through popular will is enforced periodically.

Democracy sometimes is narrowly equated to elections and the subsequent government formation. In the pomp and bombast of elections, we often forget the other pillars of the democracy viz. the judiciary and the media that complete the system. While the US has a settled practice of judicial appointments through Presidents and subsequent approval in the Senate, India has the collegium system, where a club of existing judges appoint their successors.

Efforts to provide popular legitimacy to the appointment of judges through the involvement of the legislature was rejected by judges themselves. Justice Chelameswar raised a dissent in the National Judicial Appointments Commission case and has set in motion a vigorous debate on the system of appointing judges that would provide for the renewal through popular will, albeit indirectly. Nevertheless seeds of reform have been sown and attempts are being made to clear the clog in the blocked pipe. That brings us to the weakest link in both democracies, the fourth pillar. The media are undoubtedly the winners of the wooden spoon.

With no code for self correction, the same editors continue in spite of their gaping errors or questionable practices, being only beholden to the proprietors of the news organisations. They become entrenched as a part of the permanent establishment that strengthens it own hold. Their bounden duty of showing a mirror to the other pillars of democracy is forgotten and personal promotion and aggrandisement has taken primacy. Unfortunately, sanctimony has become all pervasive.

One only needs to look at the social media profiles of top journalists to confirm it. Even the coverage of the current Presidential elections by the New York Times (NYT) smacks of extraordinary bias, and in their zeal to vanquish their ideological foe, the principles of ethics and neutrality are thrown to the wind. When a dispassionate assessment is made in future, the coverage during this elections will stand out as one of NYT’s low points. While social media has now become the big media’s watch dog, it is still in its infancy in broadcasting and opinion-making prowess.

Even for people in free societies, the China model might appear appealing in the present circumstances. The Chinese will play it up as well as to how their system of choosing enlightened leaders through a “meritocratic” system is better. The United State’s neocon mission of promoting democracy in West Asia and elsewhere will lack the moral heft.

Anyway, there is little left to propagate in vestiges of Arab Spring. While India has not been actively promoting democracy by the way of use of force, it is silently leading by example. It has proved that democracy is the steady blue chip stock that other countries should buy. Among the countries in Africa, West Asia and in the SAARC neighbourhood, India is looked upon as the bellwether of openness and stability. Over 20 countries have entered into MoUs with the Election Commission of India.

While the glitz of US is appealing, the grit of India is worth emulating. As a cricket coach would say, you can get inspired by Tendulkar but can learn much from Dravid. Democracy cannot cover itself in gold dust all the time. There will be times when the centrifuge throws out leaders that do not represent the best ethos of the country.

Nevertheless, as a long term project democracy has proven by example as the best guarantor of justice and prosperity through periodic rejuvenation. Every pillar in democracy needs to not only act as the mandated principles of check and balance but also allow for reforms to promote self rejuvenation. They owe that much to the “demos”. Let us cheer a fellow democracy well through Tocqueville again: “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”