A democracy without peaceful dissent and a vibrant liberty will only lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’
Democracy by itself is not complete. It is inter-dependent on other virtues and principles that govern human affairs and human life. The problem today is that democracy as a political system has acquired a status whose legitimacy goes unquestioned.
From its Greek root, ‘democracy’ means ‘the rule of the people.’ Hence more democracy should necessarily imply more power to the people and more freedom, liberty and yes, more dissent as well. But does it?
A nonviolent and peaceful public dissent is an important characteristic that represents the nature of a democratic system that is continuously evolving and transforming to meet the needs of people. Contrary to popular assumption, the presence of public dissent does not imply failure, rather it demonstrates the ability of a confident and functioning democracy to embrace and accommodate constructive and critical opposition. In an ironic yet significant way, public dissent is an indicator that measures the effectiveness and activeness of a democratic system.
Hence, the absence of public dissent only demonstrates the presence of conditions that does not allow people to democratically express their grievances. In such conditions, there are tendencies to structurally suffocate, stagnate and strangulate the creativity of the collective imagination. Hence, when there is no public dissent, the system ceases to be dynamic, and reaches a point where it stops responding to people’s aspirations.
While democracy over the last 100 years has gone from being a form of government to a way of life, it is equally true to say that democracy, more and more has come to represent nothing more than a procedure by which a government is formed. Democracy has been reduced to most part a process of free and fair elections. This limited interpretation of democracy has given birth to the tension between democracy and freedom.
In today’s global system if a country holds competitive, multiparty elections, it is called “democratic.” But it needs to go beyond this minimal requirement to be labeled as democratic. A government produced by free and fair elections may turn out to be inefficient, corrupt, irresponsible, shortsighted, and incapable of adopting democratic policies. Democracy, therefore, cannot be considered as the one and only public virtue. Democracy as a process must be related to other public virtues that makes a shared humanity possible.
If today’s scholars widely accepts democracy as a process of selecting a government, it must simultaneously ensure that such a process is inherently related to other public virtues such a justice, freedom and liberty. Hence democracy as a process of free and fair elections cannot be left unrestricted. Fareed Zakaria argues that it is “by restricting our democracy, we enhance our freedom and calls for restoration of the balance between liberty and democracy.” It is imperative therefore for a truly democratic government to guarantee social, political, economic, cultural and religious rights which are contextually relevant and consistent within the broader ambits of universal rights.
emocracy cannot just be about the procedures for selecting a government; it must reflect the goals of the government; and the approaches it takes in realizing them. Today it is important to turn our question to why ‘democracy is flourishing; but liberty and freedom are not.’
In the present unfolding situation of the sub-continent where public dissent has been labeled as anti-national and liberty is being undermined, one needs to ask whether the tyranny of the majority has raised its ugly head!
