Monarchies dominated traditional governance systems. The will of the sovereign, technically paramount, was limited by tradition, religious law and the established rights of the nobles and provinces. When the Parliament of Castile offered the crown to Charles V, they stated: “We, who are worth as much as you, make you our King and Lord, as long as you respect our charters and liberties.” The king had to swear to uphold the charters and liberties. It is another thing that later, his main aim was to try and evade the limitations imposed on him. The king’s advisers, the priesthood, his queen, the adult princes and bankers had a policymaking role along with the more powerful nobles.
A Hindu king at his coronation would declare: “I am the power!” but the Brahmin raj guru would wag his finger at the king and say, “No, dharma is the power.” And the king had to repeat (in acceptance): “Dharma is the power”! The ritual could then proceed. The Hindu king was an upholder of dharmic order. There is no such thing as absolute power.
The breakdown of governance in ancient times was primarily due to unresolved dissent within the state structure. This was mainly due to the failure of dialogue between the monarch and a small but influential group. In democratic societies, where the entire adult population is involved in governance, dissent is likely to be more extensive. Regularly elected parliaments, written constitutions, independent judicial and religious institutions, and freedom of expression are ways of harnessing this dissent by interaction through dialogue.
We Indians find ourselves in an extraordinary situation where the old paradigm of politics has given way to a new paradigm approved in two successive general elections. Many are concerned where the new electoral majority will take the country. Uncertainty tends to create fear; fear causes anger; anger leads to violence and violence dissolves into chaos.
Dissent is essential to protect the majority from making mistakes, and relying solely on its mandate and agenda. But dissent without dialogue is a recipe for disaster. Productive dialogue requires all interlocutors to exercise discipline. Dialogue has to be sober and consistent, and allow for a detailed examination of facts and reasoned argument. Above all, speech, to be persuasive, must be polite and the persons concerned must be respectful of the views—even of extreme views—held by their interlocutors. Every relevant view needs due respect, time and attention. All sides must observe these rules. Otherwise, the dialogue becomes dysfunctional with personal attacks, dishonesty, abuse and anger.
What do we see and hear? In Parliament, opposition members seem to think shouting and interrupting speeches compensates for their lack of numbers. The government members disdain to take the opposition’s views seriously and tend to shout them down. If only the presiding officers expelled the offending member(s) for a duration long enough for it to be a punishment, perhaps things would improve. But this is seldom done. Maybe our parliamentarians should be forced to watch the proceedings of the UK House of Commons, whose procedures and discipline our Parliament adopted but fails to uphold.
Two recent cases highlight the general problem. The first was an extraordinary incident faced by the Kerala Governor at the Indian History Congress. The eminent historian from AMU, Professor Irfan Habib, launched an unscheduled political diatribe on the CAA. The Governor, Arif Mohammed Khan, who is an erudite scholar, gentleman and a constitutionalist, naturally had to defend the law established by Parliament. The 88-year old Habib then made two attempts to try and stop the Governor from speaking! The country saw the unseemly fracas on TV. The conduct of the eminent professor is inexcusable. Those in academia must maintain dignity and decency in discussion and dialogue.
The second case is the violent encounters in JNU, the pre-eminent institution in the country. It appears that encouraged by their professors, students of different political factions not only attacked each other violently but also got outside elements to assist them. If students and professors behave like this, civilised dialogue disappears from academia.
The current problem is due to the new political order initiated by the electorate’s preferences. The two-term BJP government has an overwhelming majority in Parliament, and there is a strong likelihood of it remaining in power for the foreseeable future. This prospect has caused considerable dismay and heartburn among the political, bureaucratic and academic elites that were part of the established political order. But this is no reason for anti-government elements to create disorder. The elected majority is then encouraged to stamp out minority views. The checks and balances of a democratic order, based on respect for all views and interests, will cease to operate.
The dissenting minority has more at stake than the overwhelming majority in maintaining civilised dialogue. The majority has the support of an electoral mandate, but on many issues, dissident views may be useful for the majority to consider before making decisions. The minority must consider the overall picture—that is the only way in which it can meet the majority on level ground. An opposition that represents only minority interests and views cannot convince the vast majority.
The Constitution provides for tests of legislative (and bureaucratic) decisions by establishing judicial review. The majority and minority must finally accept the Supreme Court’s verdict on the constitutionality of any law or act of government. Then dissent must end. Unless and until this approach becomes the norm in our society, this young democracy is doomed.