[Assam] Liberal vs. illiberal democracy

[Chan Mahanta]

>Nothing else is viable.


*** That is why it is my hope that during any 
political settlement between ULFA/Assam and 
India, the right of Assam to re-order its 
governance under  Assam's own Constitution will 
not be compromised.  Because unless this right is 
acquired and protected, no matter what else is 
acquired for Assam, all will be lost very soon, 
once again, into that ever descending spiral of 
Indian misgovernment.











At 9:46 PM +0530 12/28/05, mc mahant wrote:
><<<<It is exactly for that reason I see no 
>alternative for Assam than to wrest the controls 
>of its governance from the hands of Delhi, and 
>set up its own
>incorporating the checks and balances of an 
>enlightened 'liberal' democracy, with 
>functioning institutions of state, unlike those 
>of India's where they exist only on paper and 
>are at best shams. This alone could prevent the 
>tendency to break into ever smaller, but 
>unsustainable, units of government or states, 
>guaranteeing a fair shake for all the 
>stakeholders in a highly multitudinous society 
>such as Assam.>>>>
>
>You spoke my mind out. Nothing else is viable.
>mm
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net>
>To: Dilip/Dil Deka <dilipdeka at yahoo.com>, ASSAMNET <assam at assamnet.org>
>Subject: Re: [Assam] Liberal vs. illiberal democracy
>Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:17:36 -0600
>
>blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li {padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
>Thanks for sharing the article. While it is a 
>good one, I did not find anything either 
>revealing or new. It is old hat for all but the 
>'adha-khunda'
>( half-baked) chanters of the democracy mantra, 
>as is often seen in this forum from certain 
>quarters.
>
>Farid Zakaria's quote:
>
>"--Indeed, Zakaria convincingly argues that -- 
>under certain temporary circumstances -- a 
>reformist autocracy may be preferable to an 
>illiberal democracy.",
>
>-- even though presented as a landmark 
>observation, is neither new nor 
>ground-breaking. It has been a very well 
>accepted reality for quite a while, something 
>that was not lost on some of us who reminded 
>netters that is exactly what will be required 
>for a period of transition to reform Assam 
>governance from the ashes of a dysfunctional 
>desi-system, mistakenly touted as a democracy by 
>some people, drawing shrill outpourings of 
>derision and charges of delusion of dictatorship 
>and autocracy from the simple-minded.
>
>
>The definition of democracy is the key factor in 
>these discussions. The deeply flawed notion that 
>elections are the be-all and end-all of 
>democracy or the notion that majority will thus 
>asserted is somehow sacred or even barely 
>acceptable; widely prevalent among even the best 
>of Indians and NRIs/NRAs  alike ; is a singular 
>impediment to  generating broad support for 
>meaningful reforms in Indian governance, which 
>could have prevented the ever increasing 
>seditious movements and insurgencies seeking to 
>assert minority rights and aspirations.
>
>It is exactly for that reason I see no 
>alternative for Assam than to wrest the controls 
>of its governance from the hands of Delhi, and 
>set up its own
>incorporating the checks and balances of an 
>enlightened 'liberal' democracy, with 
>functioning institutions of state, unlike those 
>of India's where they exist only on paper and 
>are at best shams. This alone could prevent the 
>tendency to break into ever smaller, but 
>unsustainable, units of government or states, 
>guaranteeing a fair shake for all the 
>stakeholders in a highly multitudinous society 
>such as Assam.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 3:07 PM -0800 12/27/05, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
>
>Beware, I am throwing some meat into the cage! 
>The article makes interesting reading, whether 
>you agree with the author or not. I had saved it 
>in my "to read" folder.
>
>Dilip
>
>
>
>
>Liberal vs. illiberal democracy
>
>by <>Massimo Pigliucci May 10, 04
>
>
>Plato famously did not like democracy. He saw 
>the death of his mentor, Socrates, decided by an 
>ignorant and fearful mob of Athenians, as the 
>logical consequence of giving power to the 
>masses. While Plato’s solution to the problem, 
>his utopia of a state guided by philosophers 
>(surprise, surprise) depicted in the Republic 
>obviously wouldn’t cut it neither in theory nor 
>in practice, he had a point.
>
>Churchill once quipped that democracy is the 
>worst form of government, except for all the 
>others, which reflects the attitude of most in 
>the modern Western world. And yet, Churchill, 
>unlike Plato, failed to define what kind of 
>democracy he was referring to. Roughly speaking, 
>there are two fundamentally distinct kinds of 
>democratic government: the simple rule of 
>majority, despised by Plato but simplistically 
>endorsed by many in the United States; and a 
>constitutional democracy, in which the decisions 
>of the majority of the moment are constrained by 
>a set of rules aimed chiefly at protecting the 
>rights of minorities, including freedom of 
>speech and action.
>
>Author Fareed Zakaria, in his lucidly written 
>The Future of Freedom, labels the two kinds 
>respectively “illiberal” and “liberal” 
>democracy. By “liberal” Zakaria doesn’t mean 
>left-leaning (as he is quick to point out), but 
>rather constructed so to insure an open society, 
>encouraging a healthy liberal exchange of ideas 
>among its citizens, and tolerant of a wide 
>(though obviously not boundless) spectrum of 
>beliefs and practices.
>
>This distinction is crucial, and yet it is 
>rarely drawn by our politicians, who use the 
>word “democracy” as synonymous with 
>unquestionable good, despite plenty of evidence 
>to the contrary. Indeed, Zakaria convincingly 
>argues that -- under certain temporary 
>circumstances -- a reformist autocracy may be 
>preferable to an illiberal democracy. He points 
>out that the most successful instances of 
>transition to democracy in the world throughout 
>the 20th century have developed gradually, 
>beginning with relatively enlightened autocratic 
>leaders who saw the eventual inevitability of 
>change. Soviet Russia comes to mind, and China 
>may represent the next big example.
>
>
>On the other hand, democracy has notoriously 
>failed in many instances in South America, and 
>especially in Africa. That, claims Zakaria, has 
>been because the transition was sudden, with 
>little if any constitutional protections. The 
>results have been disastrous, leading to 
>massacres of dissenting ethnic or political 
>minorities, and often to the raise of a brutal 
>dictator favored by an urgent need of 
>reestablishing “order.”
>
>Zakaria’s book was written before the US-led 
>invasion of Iraq, but his points apply 
>remarkably well to the current situation in that 
>country. Of course, nobody would ever think of 
>Saddam Hussein as an “enlightened” dictator, but 
>it is also obvious that the Iraqi's concept of 
>democracy -- if indeed they do have one -- is of 
>the illiberal type. The Shiite clerics who are 
>pushing the country to the brink of civil war 
>want immediate elections, even though clearly 
>the minimum necessary conditions are not in 
>place. Why? Because they know they would easily 
>win a majority of the votes, which would pave 
>the way to the establishment of a democratically 
>elected theocracy in that country. Not exactly 
>what the so-called coalition of the willing had 
>in mind when they embarked in one of the most 
>ambitious operations of nation building ever 
>attempted (and led by a US president who 
>campaigned against the very idea of nation 
>building). Then again, dictators have come to 
>power by (illiberal) democratic means before, 
>just think of Hitler.
>
>Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Zakaria’s 
>argument is that the US itself may be moving 
>toward an increasingly less liberal form of 
>democracy. Many of the guarantees put in place 
>by the Founding Fathers and embedded in the 
>American Constitution are being eroded, or are 
>increasingly under attack by a politically and 
>religiously conservative (slight) majority. For 
>instance, the US Constitution guarantees a 
>separation of church and state, and yet 
>Americans are increasingly undisturbed by the 
>encroaching of government upon religion (just 
>think of the popularity of “faith-based” 
>initiatives, school vouchers, etc.), and 
>stubbornly hold to clear symbols of breach of 
>the wall of separation (such as the phrase 
>“under God” in the pledge of allegiance, or “in 
>God we trust” on the paper currency).
>
>All of this is done in the name of democracy, 
>adopting the narrow meaning of the term 
>according to which if the majority (even as 
>slight as 51%) wants something, it should be 
>done. This is precisely what led Plato to reject 
>the democratic model to begin with, and what 
>differentiates successful democracies from 
>abysmal failures. I doubt we will see another 
>Socrates being put to death anywhere in the 
>Western world, but it is significant that 
>intellectuals, or simply independent thinking 
>lay people, are under increasingly vicious 
>attack in the US for simply having the guts to 
>voice their dissent regarding the Bush 
>administration’s foreign or domestic policy. We 
>have gotten to the point that being religious, 
>right-wing, pro-war and patriotic are all seen 
>as synonymous, simply because a narrow (and 
>narrow-minded) majority of Americans currently 
>sees it that way.
>
>It is also astounding to see that the right to 
>marry (i.e., to be legally recognized as a 
>couple) is being denied to gays and lesbians by 
>people including those (e.g., some blacks) who 
>until very recently had been discriminated 
>against in their turn by a bigoted majority. The 
>obvious problem with illiberal democracies is 
>that majorities can change, sometimes 
>dramatically and over a short period of time. 
>That is why it is in the long-term interest of 
>every member of a society to defend the rights 
>of the minorities. Next time around, you may be 
>the one to need such protection.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
>  >_______________________________________________
>>assam mailing list
>>assam at assamnet.org
>>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://assamnet.org/pipermail/assam_assamnet.org/attachments/20051228/ea984329/attachment.htm