In 2021-2022, I took part in a series of global conversations exploring the idea of “healthy societies.” One of the aspects of the discourse is democracy. As this year ends, allow me to share some thoughts about the democratic project. To speak about democracy is to tackle a subject that is complex, nuanced yet so personal; democracy is a lived experience, having worked on people’s participation in governance, policy reform and intersectional feminism for over 20 years in close to 50 countries.
We live in an era of contradictions; an era of deceit and impunity countered by continuing rise, albeit never unopposed, of social and people’s movements and a kind of media and journalism fighting for truth and facts. Most of this taking place in a democratic space. Through the years there have been many names assigned to the democratic project:
Liberal democracy
Illiberal democracy
Deliberative democracy
Socialist democracy
Economic democracy
Direct democracy
Representative democracy
Constitutional democracy
Disciplinary or Disciplining democracy
To name a few
DECONSTRUCTING DEMOCRACY: DILEMMAS AND CHALLENGES
Let us pause and consider some of dilemmas and challenges faced by democracy, in a web of interconnectedness: 1) Extractive political and economic institutions, 2) Crisis of trust, 3) Structural violence and 4) “Marketised” / market driven public sphere
Extractive political and economic institutions that have their roots in colonial history
Democracy is historically contingent. In their book, How Nations Fail, David Acemoglu and James Robinson, argues that extractive political institutions have created extractive economic institutions, transferring wealth and power toward the elite, rooted in the institutions of colonial rule. Countries in Central and South America and Asia provide compelling examples.
Let’s take Sri Lanka and the Philippines as examples. Political scientist Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda argues that the “economic and political crisis” has opened new space for building a democratic public transcending ethnic and religious communalism in Sri Lanka. In both countries, there has clearly been a governance failure. Extractive political and economic institutions post martial law and post the 1986 urban uprising in the Philippines is still in a serious process of reform. The new Prime Minister of Sri Lanka declared in June that the country needs $6billion to keep the country afloat for the next six months of 2022. Undeniably, there has been a systemic erosion of the institutions of democracy- executive, legislative and judiciary- in both countries. A structural breakdown that has been taking place for years, privileging a few and causing massive poverty for the majority of the population.
Jason Hickel argues that “decisions about what to produce and how to use our collective surplus should be democratically determined, rather than controlled by and for the interests of capitalists. The path out of capitalism is economic democracy.” But how will this look like when political and economic extraction is intertwined with democracy, in certain cases, as its enabler?
Crisis of Trust: Patronage, money politics and dynasties
Extractive political and economic institutions bring with them political dynasties that thrive in patronage. Political elites often control the economy in countries where the wealth is controlled by 11% of the population. On the other hand, 82% of the wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest one percent of the global population.
Extreme inequality betrays the harm caused by structural policies and political choices that favour the interests of the richest and the most powerful over and above the vast majority of people. Dysfunctional structures and institutions in an era of monopoly power, both political and commercial, result in a crisis of trust in the democratic system that breeds contrasting outcomes: on the one hand a protest movement calling for accountability as we have witnessed in Sri Lanka and a population vulnerable to propaganda and troll campaigns on another.
Stories of structural violence in the name of modernity, progress and democracy take many forms. Structural violence
John Galtung sees violence as present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realisations are below their potential realisation. He illustrates it by saying that if someone died of tuberculosis in the 18th century, it would be hard to consider it violent because it might have been unavoidable. But if someone died of TB today, then it would be an expression of violence. This concept of structural violence has been taken up by Paul Farmer, among others. Citizens of many countries have experienced a very long history of structural violence, harms to their very life, their wellbeing and assaults to their minds. Extrajudicial killings are no different. In the global south, aggressive micro-finance companies have resulted in women trapped in cycles of multiple burden and indebtedness. Crisis of hunger amidst food systems that are controlled by commercial interests. Broken healthcare systems exposed by the pandemic. The erosion of education in many countries. Stories of structural violence in the name of modernity, progress and democracy take many forms.
Another facet of democracy in crisis is “historical forgetfulness,” invested in power and struggle"Marketised"/market driven public sphere
Within a democratic terrain, the prevailing economic order has privatised the public sphere. Globally, we have an elite-driven, commercially invested mainstream media and social media platforms. So public deliberations take place in platforms that are not primarily designed for reasonable, inclusive, and accountable political conversations. Instead, it is framed within commercial interests. Noam Chomsky in his book, Manufacturing Consent, breaks down the political economy of media long before the rise of social media
So one of the questions in “divided countries” like the US, the Philippines, and Brazil, among many others is: how can people talk to each other in a context where the sources of information and the interpretation of information are poles apart and irreconcilable, often a clash between truths and lies? In such a commercial context, divisive narratives are rewarded and incentives are offered to encourage differences. Another facet of democracy in crisis is “historical forgetfulness,” invested in power and struggle. An uncritical public sphere driven by commercial interests engineer such forgetfulness. The Cambridge Analytica and Facebook stories come to mind.
Given this battle of narratives, how do we build a collective vision based on shared values and solidarity? How can we step away from erasures to recognition and constructive dialogue and engagement?
The pathways to healthy societies call for a re-imagination, a systemic response... a kind of governance and policy response that is inclusive, marked by people’s participation, deliberations, contestations, dialogue, formally and informally, as central to decision-makingDEMOCRACY IN THE NEXT 30 YEARS?
So, what democratic practices lead to thriving healthy societies? How can healthy societies flourish in democracies founded on and propelled by VOICE, FAIRNESS and ACCOUNTABILITY? How does constructive and deliberative engagement look like in various democratic contexts?
The pathways to healthy societies call for a re-imagination, a systemic response to the complexity of the realities individual and communities face in the context of social, ecological and economic justice; a kind of governance and policy response that is inclusive, marked by people’s participation, deliberations, contestations, dialogue, formally and informally, as central to decision-making
It is crucial to address all forms of intersectional inequalities within the context of the differential impact of the crises.
So the transformation that we want can’t be found and anchored in a knowledge system of consumption. We must problematise the current production and consumptions patterns, challenge dichotomy discourse, amplify multiple ways of knowing and explore “models” of knowledge co-existence. We must also not forget the persistent lack of Pacific, Caribbean and south feminists voices directly engaging in global policy spaces even as the national policy terrain is narrowing, accountability eroding and multilateralism increasingly corporatised. Knowledge and narratives of women and communities in the margins have been systematically undocumented, unrecognized and untold. We need to keep asking: Whose knowledge and which knowledge system continue to be privileged in democracy? Who is driving the process of change and towards what end? Will the next 30 years of democracy be characterised by global gloom or by a global promise of justice?
Comments