The right to choose is of the essence of democracy. If so, it is a crucial democratic duty to be clear about what this entails. What appears to be freedom of choice may, on closer examination, turn out to be something entirely different.
Here is an illustration from Leo Tolstoy. He noticed, in one of his outings in a market place, a young man coming out of a shop and working on a cobble stone with his knife. From a distance, Tolstoy was impressed that a man, who seemed to have no formal civic responsibilities, should find the time, or have the inclination, “to polish a pavement stone”. On coming closer, Tolstoy found out that the man was a butcher, who was merely sharpening his knife. He couldn’t care two hoots for cobble stones! The case of freedom of choice may not be vastly different in millions of cases.
It is astonishing that we talk, in respect of the health of our democracy, of two absolutely contrary things at the same time, as though the one proves the merit of the other! We wax eloquent about one leader or the other sweeping the polls, riding this ‘wave’ or that of popular fervour, not realising that the function of a ‘wave’ is to sweep human beings off their feet.
‘Wave’ is incompatible with thinking and choice-making. ‘Wave’ is precisely that which does not allow anyone the luxury of a considered choice. It is a symbol entirely of the involuntary. And what is involuntary excludes the exercise of ‘choice’ altogether.
If the aforesaid logic is valid, the conclusion is inescapable that those who thrive by unleashing ‘waves’—by what devious means and at what costs, we know by now—are weakening the seminal principle, the operating logic, of democracy. ‘Wave-riders’ are demagogues and mass-hypnotisers, who make a virtue of denying citizens the right to examine lived-realities factually and to come to objective and responsible conclusions, on the basis of which to exercise their franchise. Popular frenzy is more akin to the sensibilities of conquerors and dictators like Caesar, Napoleon and Hitler.
Apart from the generation of electoral waves, there are two other factors that undermine the right to choose: fear and ignorance, both of which feed into the creation of political waves. Invariably, ideology-driven electoral waves are generated through hate-powered propaganda.
Even when it does not involve episodes of violence meant to spread fear, it bristles with violence of intents and sentiments. It is simple psychology that this appeals to the disposition of the masses, that are only too apt to be worked up to a frenzy, especially in times of drift and depression. Frenzy is cheap, ready-made entertainment; enjoyable solely for the reason that it is brewed at the expense of the repugnant ‘other’.
It does not have to be argued that ‘ignorance’ renders freedom of choice vulnerable to waves and mass hysteria. How this happens, however, is not recognised well enough. The essence of freedom of choice is ‘voluntarism’. No choice is free, which is not voluntary. As a rule, a free choice is that which emerges from within the agent of choice, based on personal convictions and preferences.
Nothing slanted or vitiated by explicit or implicit coercion amounts to choice. Consider an illiterate voter, who is in no position to form an informed opinion about issues vital to his own welfare. The political choice he makes is not ‘free’ or ‘voluntary’ by any stretch of imagination. He votes as overwhelmed, mesmerised, by the ‘waves’ that sweep over him. In a state like Kerala, where citizens are well-informed on issues, it is impossible to unleash waves based on hypes, hysteria and propaganda.
This throws up a serious issue. The fact that uninformed masses are sitting ducks for propaganda—or, its converse, that broad-basing education empowers citizens to make independent choices—becomes a disincentive to ruling dispensations to spread education and scientific temper. Superstition and irrationality are more profitable. It is not an accident, therefore, that successive governments have treated the rising educational aspirations of the people with lurking anxiety. It is critical for the health of Indian democracy, hence, that citizens judge parties and governments dispassionately on the basis of their commitment to education.
The ideological and ethical degradation of every political party is yet another factor that devalues electoral ‘choice’. Choice, to state the obvious, is between two alternatives; one superior to the other. What does freedom of choice amount to, when all political parties are inimical to the welfare of the people, either through corruption or through violence? On paper, the voter is free to choose. But, at the EVM, he has no choice. The ‘NOTA’ provision, in this light, is a metaphor of the plight of the discerning voter, who is not the camp-follower of any party or ideology. It is an ironic commentary on the ‘maturity’ of the institution of democracy in India.
So, what are we to make of the intention of any party to decimate the Opposition? Is it not the final assault on citizen’s right to choose? As of now, he or she has at least a notional width of choice. What if we reach a stage in which we have to choose between team A and team B fielded by the same party? Would that not be the state of Indian democracy, if rendered Opposition-mukt?
Only from a short-sighted view can we blame a party for believing in the attainability of such a goal. Political parties that discredited themselves in the past through corruption and indifference to duties of governance too stand condemned in this respect. What is disconcerting is that even at this eleventh hour, they do not seem inclined to learn from their experiences and mend their ways. History affords only two options: reform or perish.
Valson Thampu
Former principal of St Stephen’s College, New Delhi
Email: vthampu@gmail.com