DISSENT IS THE SAFETY VALVE OF A DEMOCRACY

When PM Modi gave a speech during the “Global Summit on Democracy” he described democracy as the government of the people, by the people, for the people, within the people, and among the people. The last two phrases encapsulate the very spirit of dissent which is recognized as an intrinsic value of democracy.

Before we proceed further, let us first understand what is dissent. Dissent refers to the practice or freedom of holding a view that is radically different from others. It undertakes various forms and ways of display. Protest like the farmer's protest of 2020, and the yellow vest protest in France. It also includes the use of social media like Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter(primarily).

Other innovative ways to protest include the one by fasting - Iron Sharmila Chame against AFSPA. It was to its rich addition, the non-cooperation, and civil disobedience movements of Gandhiji as an extended legacy of the idea.

There are however very radical ways to dissent like the incidents of self-immolation by Buddhist monks in Tibet or fasting to the point of death as happened in Potti Sriramalu.

While all these protests are steadfast in their own ways to protect democracy, one particular incident comes to my mind that was that of Justice H.R. Khanna Dissent vs Shivakant Shukla Case this case presented to us how dissent is worthful to democracy, especially in times of crisis.

It is in this context, the recently released book by Justice(retd) Rohintion Nariman book discusses why dissent is the safety value of democracy.

The first reason happens to be the respect accorded to minorities as part of dissent that separate democracy which is majoritarian from the democracy that is representative.

Another reason is that dissent allows the existence of a natural way of living which is divergence. Divergence in view happens to be just one aspect of divergence.

Dissent enables the accommodation of divergent political viewpoints. It enables the existence of a right vs left view, a conservative vs labor view in the UK, and a democrat vs republican view in the USA. It is this dissent that keeps the debate on gun violence in the USA but without resorting to violence to establish the truth.

Dissent can only be the natural order of things in divergent counties like India, and Indonesia among other. With every shade of variety, a different view comes along.

The acceptance of dissent reduces the chance of a state turning out to be proof of surveillance. The contrast between China and USA is fundamental in this context.

Democracy is by nature, the rule of people and certain situations are bounded to arise where conflict becomes the order of things. However, dissent provides a way for it fizzles out.

Dissent allows the development of an individual on an intellectual plane as it enables scientific temper to think on his own independent view rather than fall prey to homogenizing view as happened with community orders of the USSR, Crechoslavika which fell into dispute and even broke away.

After considering why dissent is the safety value of democracy, let us examine the scenario where dissent was not accepted and what consequences flow.

It led to violence as was evident in the painful separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan nearly 50 years ago.

It created an environment where divergent nationalities could not co-exist as we saw in the eventual break up of the USSR.

It eats away the heterogeneity of human thought as is happening in the Sinicisation of Uighur which was cause of the loss of Uighur identity.

It tends to promote sycophancy and creates ground for rent-seeking. It creates ground for the absence of transparency and accountability and this strikes at the facade of democratic governance.

It was the absence of dissent in the form of appeasement that led to world war second and caused the death of 4 crore people.

On the whole, the non-acceptance of dissent prevents the creation of a cosmopolitan culture line of Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam.

Anti-democratic governments or authoritarian regions all over the world have deployed various tools to curb dissent in an attempt to chip away at democracy.

One such tool is the act of Sedition to equate dissent equal to sedition is often the way to crub dissent as our supreme court pointed out.

The use of repressive police measures when combined with a lack of awareness amongst the people about the role of dissent is often a potent tool.

The creation of unitary political structures like the ones we observe in China is often another spectrum of ways to tackle dissent.

The creation of a cult of leaders as we see in the case of Viktor Orban of Hungary or Xi-Xingping’s Thought in China is often a way to promote the idea of what leaders think is right and everything else is right. In this regard, the regular line of Goebbels saying “the future is right” sings bell.

Often surveillance measure like the Antonomons Face Identification system in China is often used to observe the actions of individuals, increasingly leading to the creation of a police state.

While democracy as a virtue is in constant consternation with authoritarian regimes in Russia or China who call their system “democracy” it is essential that measures are taken so that dissent comes to be accepted as part of democracy.

The first step would be to eliminate repressive laws like Sedition as mature democracy like UK did in 2010 and no place for powers like contempt of court as it exists in India.

Second would be the existence of intra-party democracy as those who come to rule should practice the same in internal affairs.

Strengthening federal structure to accommodate variant demands and governance with consent.

The promotion of the development of scientific temper as is advocated by our constitution is the need to develop the intellectual ability to cross-questions. But this must be accompanied by reforms in the education sector. NEP 2020 is a great step in this direction.

Apart from these many reforms like civil service reforms, police reforms, and personal management reforms are needed to ensure people in contact with citizens understand and appreciate, and accept dissent. Mission Karmayogi is a great endeavor in this regard.

The independence of institutions like CBI, CCVC, and CAG among others is essential to hold the system accountable. If it attempts to hit the root of dissent.

Dissent is respected when the democracy is not merely electoral but rather representative. For there, every shade of opinion must have its presence felt in parliament, Executive, and Judiciary majoritarian premise coupled with electoral-only democracy begins to chip away at the roots of dissent in a democracy.

The tradition of democracy is very old in India. From the acceptance of tolerance as a virtue in Ashoka’s Dhamma or as a form of truth in Mahabharat through Akbar’s Sul-i-kulh to the powerful statement of Tilak - “Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it, dissent has its own share in India.

This was institutionalized in the post world war second order. However, the fading memory of the horrors of world war second and the failure of governance has given way to the rise of protectionism and extreme right view, and cult-based leaders who took upon dissent as disrespect. Xi-Xingping or Trump is a symptom of this syndrome. It is high time the message carried forward by the “Summit of Democracies” that democracies, have delivered, will deliver, and will continue to deliver needs to be popularized. It is also an important thing to remember that while dissent is the safety valve of democracy, it is the democracy-based system that accords dissent the respect it deserves.