FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK
In Search of a Morally Sensitive Democracy
A
mong the students of democracy, there is a dominant
trend that seeks to focus on an assessment, particularly of
liberal democracy, keeping in view two main aspects: the
substantive and the procedural. The procedural aspect involves
constitutional guarantees, which in turn offer every citizen an equal
right to participate in the political spaces that are formally open
to the former without distinction. The core concern of procedural
democracy is that a right-bearing citizen by virtue of their right to
participate in such spaces enjoys equal worth, particularly in
the electoral arena. To put simply, the right to vote carries equal value
inasmuch as it has the power to decide the electoral fate of the
candidate. Citizens enjoy these rights not because they belong to a
particular region or religion, or speak a particular language, but
because they have been bestowed with this opportunity by the
Constitution. Several constitutional provisions enable a citizen not
only to vote, but also to express their authentic voice in the formula-
tion of public policies that have bearing not just on their particular
interest as individuals, but on the general welfare of the public.
Democracy as an open space, thus, in constitutional terms,
enables an individual citizen to exist in the country without
anyone’s permission, patronage, or sympathy. Citizens, in an
ideal situation, thus, do not have any need to exist in the coun-
try with anyone’s courtesy or favour. Put differently, citizenship
is not based on any kind of structural hierarchy.
However, the democratic practice in the Indian context
evolved into something that has been exactly opposite to the
spirit of liberal democracy. The focus of political and electoral
mobilisation, particularly by some political parties, has shifted
from the need to promote an enlightened individual citizen to
sliding down to group mobilisation based on caste and religious
community. Such parties with a communal, sectarian orientation
have sought to dissolve individual citizens into the “constraining”
logic of specific communities. This has been done with one single
purpose, that of creating a political majority based on religion.
Put differently, the particularisation of voters is a logically necessary
condition to create and consolidate a party’s political identity as
the party of the majority community; majority that is ethnic
rather than democratic.
The political project that involves the dissolution of individual
or individuated citizens into the specific framework of either
caste or religion, is carried out less with passive indifference and
more with intense feelings of hatred for a person who belongs to
Economic & Political Weekly EPW OCTOber 26, 2019 vol lIV no 43
minority. Such reduction of a person to minoritisation is morally
coercive. It is offensive to the extent that it denies members
from the community an opportunity for self-realisation as
enlightened citizens.
Democracy as an open political space, therefore, is only the
necessary or initial condition inasmuch as it allows a person to
exercise their right to participate in such spaces. But the con-
stitutional provision for open spaces, though necessary, is not
enough for the self-realisation of a person enjoying equal worth
and civic attention. It does not guarantee a citizen equal worth
and equal civic attention. Every citizen who is a constitutive part of
the open space called democracy has to be embedded with ethical
readiness to acknowledge the other’s moral need of equal worth.
Ethical readiness to share the value space is fundamentally
necessary for a sensitive democracy. Democratic space has to be
hospitable rather than hostile. In such a democracy, a particular
member does not face their reduction to an object of hatred or
repulsion or contempt. While it is true that members of these com-
munities have been exercising their right to vote, one cannot say
with a fair degree of confidence that the members belonging to
these social groups have been able to express their voice, which is
necessary to mark their vibrant presence both in the institutional as
well as public spaces. However, it would not be an exaggeration to
make an observation that they seem to have gone under the “siege.”
The democratic practice of the last two decades makes an Indian
quite sceptical about its capacity to become morally sensitive to the
ethical need of a citizen to be an equally worthy being. Hence,
one needs to reaffirm the following point: What is important for
democracy and its members is not just the politically open space,
but the common space that has to be shared by its constitutive
members with equal dignity and respect. Sharing universal values
of dignity and mutual respect are necessary democratic aspiration
and assertion for every member of the political community. The
emergence and consolidation of political community needs to be
premised over the creation of ethical community. This can happen
through sharing the basic framework of moral values, such as
dignity and mutual respect. Such values are best protected by
creating a moral solidarity rather than a dominant desire to create
political majority based on ethnicity.
9