We must improve the quality of public debate

Can argumentative India be governed: We must improve the software of democracy, that is the quality of public debate, says Arun Maira The Economic Times Monday, December 19, 2005

In the World Economic Forum’s India Summit, last month, four points were made early in the discussion.

1. The first was a call by one of the speakers for the ‘intelligentsia’ to push the economic agenda into politics with ‘logic and facts’, and not leave the agenda to the masses (and thus populism).
2. The second was the counter to this by another speaker that the masses were very savvy about real economics since it affected their lives.
3. The third was a question about why arguments about policies never seem to end in India.
4. And the fourth was a suggestion that to close arguments we should use the process of referendums on specific issues.

Therefore, it is worth applying our minds to how we can ease this constraint within the polity. To begin with, we must examine some myths about democracy in India.

• The first myth is that arguments on policy matters are not settled within Indian democracy whereas they are in others. Consider Japan or Germany where issues about economic reforms have dragged on for over a decade. Also the US, where people on opposite sides of various issues — reduced taxes for the rich, gun control, the role of government in social services, and abortion control — have argued for decades and seem no closer to agreement. Clearly, when people believe in something, they find the logic and facts to support their beliefs and no amount of logic and facts from the other side will make them change their minds. This is so in India and everywhere.
• The second myth is that referendums on specific issues are a good solution to move an economy onwards. Consider California, which has used this method for many years, and to which is attributed the mess of the State’s finances. My ‘intelligentsia’ friends in California tell me that they do not have the time to read the lengthy explanations they are given when they are asked to vote on various propositions. So even they end up voting according to their gut feelings, as would the masses. When the voters are asked in one proposition if there should be a limit on taxation, they say yes, whether they are rich or poor.

When asked in another proposition whether the government should invest in education they also say yes, whether they are highly educated or not. Since the systemic connections between the separate propositions are not understood, such as how education will be funded if taxes are limited, policy-makers hands get tied by the decisions imposed on them by the voters.

Democracies need effective processes for involving people who have different beliefs and perceptions to understand issues together and develop solutions they will all support. Direct votes are not a substitute for dialogue amongst people. Nor are seminars where speakers from podiums repeat their messages to passive audiences. And neither are the debates between people on opposite sides of issues that entertain us in seminars and on TV. In these debates, speakers try and demolish their opponents’ arguments, rather than listen to understand the other’s perspective from which a deeper insight may emerge. The latter is the essence of dialogue.

It is worth noting the contrast between the principles of debate of the Greeks on which western debates are founded and the ancient Indian tradition of dialogue. The Socratic method is clearly an adversarial debate, using ‘logic and facts’ to prove the opponent wrong. Whereas Ashoka’s rules for public discussion demanded restraint in speech and respect for others’ views. Some say that democracy is the only achievement that India can claim. They say that India has been a loser in the economic race to China and that we shelter behind our democracy as an excuse for indecisiveness. The comparison with China leads to two questions.

The first is whether China’s path to development, which is the economy (and infrastructure) first and democracy later, is better or India’s, democracy first and through democracy the development of the infrastructure and economy. However, the answer to this is only of theoretical interest because India cannot declare an economic ‘emergency’ and give up democracy even temporarily to accelerate its economy. Therefore India must improve the effectiveness of its democratic processes.

The Constitution, with its legislatures and other formal institutions, along with the system of electing representatives to these institutions, is the ‘hardware’ of democracy. However, it is the ‘software’ of democracy — the processes of dialogue in these institutions, as well as the public participation in the debate — that brings democracy to life. We need to improve the software to make Indian democracy fully effective. What we need, as do other democracies, is the proliferation of good and effective WMD (ways of mass dialogue). These WMD could be the innovation that India needs to grow its economy equitably and democratically at 10% and more. This ‘software’ could also be India’s contribution to enhance the global democratic enterprise.