Democracy or Dictatorship?

In democratic societies, expressing displeasure on the government and political leadership is routine affair. It is characteristic of any ideal democracy to allow the space for people to express their discontent on its working. At times, individuals detest democracy itself as the cause of miseries in the nation and advocate for replacing the democratic system with dictatorship. The moment the debate starts around whether India needs democracy or dictatorship, there won’t be an end for that issue because of its political as well as philosophical quotient.

While reading a biography on Morarji Desai written by S. A. Ayer, in the appendix that contains original reflections by Morarji, I came across a short reflection of his on how he was shocked and frightened when people suggest that dictatorship is good for India. He writes:

After having seen the downfall and the tragic end of dictators like Hitler and Mussolini, and the tragic condition of the Germans and the Italians, I do not understand why people think that dictatorship is better. A dictator by his iron hand can reform the nation, within a very short period. But, these reforms do not come from the understanding of the people. People adopt the reforms because of compulsion and the fear of ruthless and barbaric punishment involved in disobeying the dictates of the dictator. So, anything which is born out of fear and compulsion is neither desirable, nor genuine. Hence, it is better to convince the people, educate them and then introduce reforms, for only then will the reforms be lasting. 

Again our sheer-anchor is non-violence. While dictatorship thrives on lional violence, our own culture is against dictatorship. The very spirit of India abhors dictatorship. So, those who talk in terms of dictatorship, do not know the consequences of it. It means the end of all minds of individual liberty, strict regimentation. The human being becomes a machine which is handled by the dictator as he likes. We do not want to bring a larger evil to remove smaller evils.*

This short reflection have larger implications and it demonstrates clarity of Morarji’s thinking alongside. It is foolish to trade-off democracy for dictatorship in order to solve evils in the country and advocating such a trade-off merely indicates the limitations of individuals rather than limitation of democracy. Any reform necessitates constant negotiation, action, feedback and improvement for achieving its objectives, and it is in democracy alone such process is feasible.

Mere establishment of democracy can’t garner results. As Ambedkar succinctly reminds us, “Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic”. But certainly, Democracy can provide space for effective reform process. It requires individuals trust on democracy and their ability to keep the democratic process ongoing, procedurally and substantially. Dictatorship strips the individuals of their role in reform process, takes away their agency and gives way for blind top-down imposition of reforms which could have disastrous consequences for individuals and nations. Democracy is only hope.

*Excerpt from Desai, M. (1960). Dictatorship. In S. A. Ayer, The Lone Sentinel: Glimpses of Morarji Desai (p. 150). Bombay: Popular Book Depot.