Hello and welcome friends, to this third and
concluding lecture on democracy.
We have discussed in previous lecture on the
idea of democracy, how it has become, the
legitimizing idea of our time, so much so
that many undemocratic or authoritarian regime
also, justify, the rule in the name of democracy.
But for a very long time, democracy was also
equated with the idea of mobocracy or mob
rule.
So, it has negative connotation, but in contemporary
modern times, all things that are good and
virtuous is associated with democracy, and
therefore, it leads to a lot of confusion,
misinterpretations or misuse of this term
democracy, which we have discussed in the
first lecture.
In the second lecture, we have discussed different
models of democracy.
And today, we will focus on the challenges
or some of the criticisms to democracy.
And in the last part, very briefly, we will
discuss the idea of free press, and how, free
press is related to the functioning or the
effectiveness of democracy in any society.
So, to begin, it in modern times, as we have
say though the idea has become a legitimizing
idea of our time, but that does not mean that
democracy do not face criticisms or challenges.
And, there are a multiple challenges and limits
to modern democracy.
And one of the biggest challenges is to define
the term, precisely.
So, as we have seen in the previous lecture,
there are different conceptualizes, there
are different meanings that is attached to
democracy.
And that creates a kind of confusion about
defining the term, precisely.
So, whether it is about certain procedures
which needs to be followed, before a country
claims itself, to be a democratic country
or there is something, more to that.
So, in the procedural or substantive notions
of democracy, we have seen that how democracy
is not just about me following certain procedure,
but it is also something, which empowers,
which is about the substantive transformation
in the lives of individual and community.
So, to define, then this term precisely, remains
one of the biggest challenges.
So, there are many people, many groups, many
societies with their different understandings,
different conceptualizations of democracy.
And it is often, seen as which is true democracy,
and which is false democracy, which is virtual
democracy, and which is real democracy, and
all those debates creates this confusion,
which makes it almost impossible, to define
the term democracy and that remains one of
the biggest challenges.
And the reason for this is the ubiquitous
use of the term that means, everyone now,
claims to be a democrat, and to identify,
or to say, someone as undemocratic or a society
undemocratic, it is seen as offending.
So, this use, however, the ubiquitous use
of this term, democracy makes it very difficult,
and the association with the virtuous is good.
So, everything that is good or virtuous is
seen as related to democracy.
And therefore, its virtues or vices are seldom
discussed or analyzed dispassionately.
So, this emotional or the psychological association
of everything that is good and virtuous with
democracy, makes it impossible or very different
to analyze or to study, the virtue or the
vices of democracy in a very dispassionate
manner.
So, people, will have a kind of very passionate
understanding or argument about the merits
or demerits of democracy.
To study dispassionately is the biggest challenge.
Political thinkers have criticized democracy
from different perspectives, and that we have
seen, how and on what ground, they criticize
democracy.
Now, broadly speaking, there are two kinds
of criticisms to democracy.
One, which questions the very idea of democratic
rule.
So, for a number of theorists and scholars,
democracy is in itself, a bad system of rule,
because it delays the thing, it postpones
the thing, and it is almost, impossible to
arrive at any consensus.
So, it is about the frustration.
If there is some quick measures that is needed
to be taken to protect the society or to some
immediate responses to the circumstances is
almost, difficult in a democratic set up.
And basically, it leads to polarization in
the society, manipulation, coercion and corruption
and so on, and so forth.
So, in many thinkers, their conceptualizations
of democracy, and their criticisms to democracy
is not just that its practices are bad, but
the very system of rule that is based on the
number it itself, is unjustified.
And therefore, there is one set of criticism,
which questions the very idea of democratic
rule.
Then, we have another set of thinkers or the
intellectuals, which questions the processes
or the functioning of democracy, even, when
they agree with the ideal of democratic rule.
So, the idea of democracy is not questioned,
but they question the very functioning or
the process of democracy.
So, that means, they argue about the ways
and means, to make a democracy more effective,
more efficient system of rule.
They do not however, question the very idea
or the ideals of democracy that is based on
the consent of the ruled.
So, they do not necessarily, oppose democracy
as rule of the people, by the people, and
for the people kind of understanding, that
ideal of democracy that it is ruled by the
people directly, or indirectly, through their
representatives for the benefit of the people.
So that understanding of democracy or the
ideal of democracy is not challenged, rather
they seek to expand or question its popular
definition.
So, the possibility, of doing a lot of undemocratic
things or in the popular imagination, the
various vices or various corruptions or the
undemocratic means, that is deployed, they
questions those practices, and tries to expand
them ideal of democracy.
So, in their work, they distinguish between
democratic principles that are effectively,
implemented through undemocratic procedures
or undemocratic principles that are implemented
through democratic procedures and variations
of the same kind.
So, in their studies, they tries to analyze
or explain, how certain democratic decisions
are or can be taken by undemocratic procedures
or undemocratic system of rule or contrary
to that how in a democracy also, it is possible,
to take or implement certain undemocratic
policies or decisions.
And then, there are a number of variations
in between.
So, it is possible that a undemocratic or
authoritarian system of rule may take decisions,
which is for the benefit of everyone, which
is closer to democratic decisions.
And in contrary, there is also, the possibility
that within a functioning democracy, there
is the possibility of the undemocratic decisions
taken by the government.
So, critics of democracy would agree however,
with Winston Churchill’s famous remark,
that no one pretends that democracy is perfect
or all wise.
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is
the worst form of government, except all those
other forms that have been tried from time
to time.
So, the argument, here, is that democracy
as a system of rule or a mechanism to govern
the society is very far from perfect.
So, there are a number of vices, a number
of defects in the democracy.
However, in comparison, to the other system
of rules or other system of governing a large
society, democracy remains relatively, much
better system of rule that is based on the
consent of the people or that works for the
interests of the people.
So, there is not a group or a single individual
for which benefits the whole system operates,
but it is for the benefit of larger society
or everyone in the community that the legitimacy
of rule or the democratic rule, rests.
So, in Plato, Aristotle, Tocqueville, John
Stuart Mills, Schumpeter, Robert Dahl, Habermas,
have all explained the critical aspect or
what Michael Mann, called the dark side of
the democracy.
So, they have all explained the demerits or
defects of democracy.
So, for example, Plato in The Trial and Death
of Socrates, wrote, that the wisest and the
most just of all men have demonstrated the
defects of democracy and of popular rule.
He decried democracy, because according to
him, the people are not trained to select
the best rulers and the wisest courses.
So, for him, the idea of the philosopher king,
who is intellectually, sound enough or competent
enough, to take the state forward is a best
system of rule rather than democracy, where
most of the people are not trained or competent
enough, to select their rulers, and also,
to take the wise decisions that affects the
whole society.
So, for him, the best system of rule is a
rule by the philosopher king, who is knowledgeable,
competent or visionary, enough to take the
country forward.
So, the Plato, we have this criticism against
democracy, which is seen as based on the consent
of those, who do not have the training or
the competence, to either select their best
rulers or to take wise decisions.
So, democracy enables, a man with gift of
eloquence and oratory to get votes of the
people and secure public offices.
So, it is possible, that in a democracy, that
a man with gift of eloquence or oratory to
get votes of the people and secure public
office, but it is possible, that such man
may turn or to be thoroughly, selfish and
incompetent, who may ruin the state and lead
it to disastrous consequences.
So, the argument against democracy is that
since, people are not trained or competent
enough or prudent enough to select the wise
rulers in that societies or in such circumstances,
it is possible, that a man with eloquence
or having great oratory, or communication
skills can manipulate the voters and secure
the public positions.
But, after the securing public positions,
that person may turn out to be absolutely,
selfish and also, incompetent.
And that may lead to the ruining of state
and also, the disastrous consequence.
So, it is possible in a democracy, where such
men with absolute self-interest and incompetency
also, occupy the public positions, and that
will be disastrous for the state and the community.
So, therefore, he questions the democratic
system of rule.
In Aristotle, what we find that in his classification
of normal and perverted forms of government,
Aristotle place democracy among the perverted
form of government.
So, the opposite of democracy, for Aristotle,
which he considered as the ideal state, is
polity.
So, Aristotle, plays democracy among the perverted,
that means, a system of rule which is corrupt
or which is not really, for the interest of
every section, but in the name of the larger
or the common interest, it perpetuates or
it represents, the interest of very few people.
And the decisions that it takes is not really,
beneficial for the every member in the society.
So, why, he consider it as a perverted form
of government, because it signify the rule
of mediocre seeking their selfish interest,
and not the interest of the state or every
member of the state.
So, according to Aristotle, democracy is based
on a false assumption of equality.
It arises out of the notion that those who
are equal in one respect or respect that is
law or equal in all respects, be it social,
economic, and so on.
So, because men are equally free, they claims,
to be absolutely, equal.
The challenge is that the expertise and abilities
is reduced to numbers, while numbers are or
can be manipulated.
So, in democracy, what happens, the expertise
or the talent or the abilities of individuals
are reduced to number.
So, a philosopher or an artisan or a farmer
will have the same value or are of equal worth.
And then, Aristotle that is, for Aristotle
a problematic preposition in a democratic
rule, which do not distinguish between the
men with the vision or intellect or the men
who is not that competent intellectually,
or literally.
So, in this set up of a democratic rule, what
matters, really, is not the worth or the intellect
of a person, but the number, that each person
carries one or the same value, and that is
something, which can be manipulated.
So, the 10 philosophers are equal to the 10
farmers or say, 10 artisans and so on.
And in this system of rule, there are also,
chances that people can also be mislead or
easily, mislead.
So, therefore, Aristotle, argued that a mixed
constitution that a combination of aristocracy
and democracy, as the best possible form of
government.
And, his critique of democracy, which we theorized,
as a perverted form of government.
Tocqueville, in his famous book, Democracy
in America, which is a classic work, on democracy,
where, he appreciates the culture of democracy
that prevails in American society.
However, provides a criticism of democracy
by arguing the tyranny of majority.
This tyranny of majority is that the decision
taken by majority must be followed or has
binding effect on everyone, particularly,
those who are not from the majority culture
or the community.
So, the minority in a democracy always face
this threat from the decisions taken by the
majority.
And he explained the threat that democracy
posed to minorities and individual liberty.
So, the individual liberty and the minorities
are always at the mercy or under the control
of the decisions taken by the majoritarian
rule.
So, it creates, a kind of tyranny, where the
majority rules prevail at the cost of minorities
rights or the individual liberty.
So, democracy permits the tyranny of majority,
and therefore, he is also, critical of this
demerits or defects of democratic rule.
He particularly, feared its cultural repercussions.
So, the decisions of the majorities are forced
or have binding effect on the minority.
Similarly, John Eastward Mills, and we have
discussed, Mills, support for the freedom
of speech and expression and liberty also,
argued that for all his defense of democracy
and political participation, he also considered
majoritarianism, like Tocqueville, and mediocre
government as the biggest weakness of democracy.
So, democracy, in a very procedural sense
is a number game.
In a democratic structure, only those party
or groups get the opportunity to rule, who
have the number that is the majority in their
side.
Similarly, moving on the classical elitist
theorists, like Pareto, Mosca and this we
have discussed in models of democracy.
They criticized this idea of democracy as
a system of rule, where it is based on the
consent or the popular will.
They argue that the political power in every
society has always been in the hands of a
minority and that is the elite.
So, according to them, these elites are able
to rule or dominate due to their ability to
manipulate or coerce.
So, this elitist theories or particular to
the classical elitist theory, like Pareto,
and Mosca, questions the ideal of popular
participation and participation of people
in the process of governance.
For them, it is always, the minority or the
small elite in any society, historically,
which governs the ruled.
And that ability to govern the ruled and the
chances to govern for the elite comes from
their ability to manipulate and coerce.
C. Wright Mills, similarly, provide a kind
of sociological explanation to the elitist
theory in United States, where he talks about
the power elite in American political system,
which dominated executive power and how these
elites are closely, knit sharing the same
background and common value.
So this small power elite in America, where
military leader, economic leader or the political
leader, they are closely, tied or knit together
and share the same values or cultural sensibilities,
which enables, them to manipulate the system
or to rule the rest of the society.
So, the elitist theory of democracy particularly,
criticize this idea of popular participation
in the system of rule, where they believe
that this rule is basically, rule by the minority.
However, they also, argued that how to make
it acceptable is by allowing that the elite
or that elite section is open for the new
members, it is not a closed kingship kind
of relationship, where the entry or exit is
closed.
So, in this power elite or the elites theory
of democracy, you have the flexibility of
new members joining and those who are no longer
relevant or credible moving out of this power
elite.
But, however, democracy or democratic system
of rule is still the rule by the elite, the
minority section of the people, so that is
their criticisms to the democracy.
Similarly, Socialist and Marxists shared the
same view that in liberal democracy political
power is used to protect and advance the interests
of minority that is the Bourgeoise class or
those who have the ownership of property.
So, the inherent contradiction in a liberal
democracy, according to the Socialists and
Marxists, is that it provides, political or
legal equality in the absence of social, economic
equality.
And in the sense, of social and economic equality,
political and legal equality makes little
sense.
So, they are very critical of the social and
economic inequality that prevails in a liberal
society, even though it protects and promotes
political and legal equality.
So, that is their criticisms to democracy.
Now, James Bryce is one of the greatest champions
of democracy and he is most sympathetic critic.
So, he criticized the democracy, but also,
he is a champion of democracy or democratic
system of rule.
And in his two monumental works, The American
Commonwealth and the Modern Democracy, he
has mainly, treated democracy as a form of
government.
So, it is basically, about ruling or governing
the society and as we have discussed that
democracy is not merely, a system of rule,
but it is also, to do with how people and
community govern themselves.
So, the idea of Swaraj, for example, in Gandhian
philosophy, expands the notion of democracy
as self-rule much beyond the rule of government.
So, Swaraj is not just freedom from British
or external interference, but it is also,
about how individual or community themselves
govern, itself.
So, it is not just about the system of rule,
but it is also, about how individual and community,
internalize the democratic principle to govern
themselves.
And that is here, in James Bryce, we see that
largely, democracy is taken as a system or
a form of government.
So, he defines, democracy as the rule of the
people expressing their sovereign will through
the votes.
So, the popular participation and expression
of the sovereign will is through vote.
And therefore, in all the democracy, the periodic
election say, every 4 year, 5 year or 6 year,
the election must be held.
And election is the time, where the electorate
that means, people in that country collectively,
express their will or express their support
or give the mandate.
And that is the occasion, when a party seeks
or tries to ensure their support among the
electorates.
So, this voting exercise in democracy, therefore,
is a very significant and powerful tool for
expressing the popular will or the popular
sovereignty in a society and that gives legitimacy
to a party to rule.
So, for example, in India today, BJP is the
party which is ruling.
Prior to BJP, we have congress lead UPA.
And in 2014 election, people did not give
mandate to the UPA.
But, in 2009, they did reaffirm their support
for the UPA, and therefore, you have the two
terms for the UPA, UPA I and UPA II.
Now, in 2014, people thought that BJP will
be a better party to govern them for the next
5 years.
And you have election in 2019, there again,
people will have the opportunity and scope
to express their collective will, and to give
mandate to a particular political party to
govern, themselves.
So, democracy, in James Bryce, understanding
is seen as a system of rule, where the...and
this rule is for the people, by the people,
through their representatives.
The people participate in this system of rule
and express their sovereign will through their
votes.
So, finally, he reduced this system of rule
to the majority.
So, those who get the majority of votes or
majority of shares in the assembly or in the
Parliament among the elected representatives
of the people, they get the opportunity to
form the government.
So, it is a system of rule, which is based
on the consent of the people or the electorate.
And those who secured the majority of votes,
among the electorates get the opportunity
to form the government.
However, he enumerated six evils or defects
of the existing democracy.
The first is the power of money, interests
to prevent administration or legislation.
So, in all democratic countries, you see,
the exercise or the influence of those who
have the control over our economic resources
or the money power.
So, those who have ownership of resources,
they tend to influence the functioning of
administration and legislation, which is supposed
to work according to, or for furthering, the
interests of everyone.
The second is the tendency, to allow politics
to become a trade, entered for gain and not
for service.
So, in the democratic elections, basically,
the exercise is merely, to gain and loose,
and largely, those who compete for position
of power forget that the whole exercise is
for the service of the people.
So, the moral and the ethical aspects of democratic
system is somewhat, compromised, when the
actors, for example, the political parties
or the political leaders or the politicians
in democracy fight election only, for gaining
and loosing.
Democracy, which ideally, should be seen as
something, more than loosing or winning the
election, it is about serving the society
or taking the society, together is reduced
to a kind of polarizing politics or patrician
politics, where the whole exercise of election
and democratic process is about winning and
losing, and the sense or the purpose of service
is somewhat, compromised.
The extravagance is again, the cost of elections
and so on, is so huge that it is almost impossible,
for those, who do not have means or those
who do not have enough resources to contest
the election.
And even, if they contest, their chances of
winning, the proportionality of their winning
in comparison to the other candidates, and
their expenditure reduce their chance to get
elected.
So, the extravagance is another challenge
or another defects or demerits of modern democracy.
The next is the failure to evaluate properly,
the skilled man, and to abuse the doctrine
of equality.
So, in democratic system, as we have discussed
in our previous lectures, it is about number.
Those who secured the maximum or the majority
of votes, get the position of power.
Now, in securing those power, there is no
discrimination on the basis of ability of
a person, whether it is based on his intellectual
capacity or his or her abilities or expertise
in particular domain.
The equality is seen, as the sameness or the
identical.
So, every single individual in a democratic
structure is treated as one and the same or
identical to each other without any discrimination,
even based on their abilities or expertise.
And that leads to a kind of failure to adequately,
or properly, assess the skill of the person.
So, in democracy, what matters is the number,
and number is one and same for everyone without
any consideration of their skills, abilities
or expertise.
And that is the biggest drawback of democracy,
as we have seen, while discussing, Aristotle’s
idea of democracy as a perverted form of government.
Then, the party politics is another defects
of democracy, where the parties objective
ideally, should be to provide alternative
or to provide a platform for the people, to
express their views, to come together to participate
in the political process.
We have seen in the functioning democracy,
there is also, the constrain of the representatives
of people, who have fought one election on
the basis of particular parties ticket, their
expression or their expression of public interest
is somewhat, curtailed by the party line.
So, the party and its ideology, dictates or
restrains the representatives of people, to
express themselves, freely.
So, the idea of whip, in modern democracy,
where the party ensures that the candidates
who won the election from their party must
expresses in a particular way, on particular
issue.
And that is somewhat, restraining for the
representatives of people to express themselves.
And also, the political parties makes the
whole process of election not about making
people aware about democratic system or providing
true alternative to the people, but it perpetuates,
the same policies or same kind of policies,
where the real change or transformation in
the economic or social science is not very
effective.
And yet in the political or in the popular
discourse, it seems, that different political
parties providing different alternatives to
the people.
So, the political parties in a way, first,
restrained the democratic process in a sense,
the representative of the people, who have
fought or contested the election on a particular
party ticket are restrained to express their
views on a particular issue, according to
the party whip, which is not in accordance
with the democratic principle of expressing
the interest of the people, they represent
rather than the candidates stand to represent
the views of the their party, and not of the
people.
So, political party, politics in a democracy,
somewhat, constrains or limits the functioning
of democracy.
And, finally, the tendency of politician is
to play for vote.
So, all the considerations or calculation
in the democratic politics for a politician
or leader is to secure vote.
And, they then, lack the courage to take decisions,
which is compromising their votes or their
support base.
So, usually, politicians do not take the risk
of losing their votes.
And, all the policies or decisions that a
government or party in power takes in democracy
is about securing the maximum vote and how,
to manipulate the votes.
So, these are some of the defects that James
Bryce, argues, in a democratic system.
So, however, Bryce points out that the first,
three of these evils that is the power of
money, the tendency to allow politics to become
a trade and extravagance is common to other
forms of government.
Two, and not specific to democracy.
The last three, is the defects or demerits
which is associated with democracy, but it
can be resolved, also.
So, major problems of democracy into self-interest
and irresponsibility of those who exercise
power.
So, the party or the leaders are not as much
committed to promoting the collective interests
as to secure their own position or their own
self-aggrandizement at the cost of common
interests.
Now, moving onto the major challenges of democratic
processes and outcomes, some of the major
challenges are the political instability,
so that is when, democracy in most of the
societies is indirect form of democracy, where
people govern themselves through their representative.
And sometimes, as we have seen in India for
a very long time, no one party got the complete
majority on its own.
And therefore, they form the government which
we call coalition government.
And that coalition government, we always,
risk the chance of losing the majority support.
And this element of democracy, and also, the
frequent elections lead to a kind of challenge,
where the political stability in a country
is always, somewhat compromised.
So, one of the challenges to democracy is
it leads to political instability, where the
change in the government also, leads to change
in needs, domestic, and foreign policy, particularly,
about trade or the same immigration and so
on.
Now, these frequent changes in government
that leads to changes in the policies creates
a condition, where a lot of social and economic
transformations, and opportunity for investment
or development is somewhat, lost.
And therefore, you have seen, particularly,
in many countries in Asia and Africa, particularly,
developing countries, for whom many societies
have this opinion that undemocratic or a kind
of authoritarian regime is far more desirable
for social and economic transformation in
comparison to democracy.
And democracy is seen as somewhat, a system
of rule for those who can afford it.
So, the real priority for the society is social
or economic growth and development, and transformation,
and also, poverty alleviation.
So, if, that is the topmost priority of the
nation or the country, then many people argue
that it is based to be governed by the authoritian
regime.
So, in comparison, to say China and India,
we see many people that in comparison to,
Chinese economic transformation and development,
India is far more lagging behind.
However, what distinguish between the two
countries, the idea of democratic functioning
multiparty system of democratic rule in India,
and one party regime in China.
So, this kind of comparison is also, there,
but however, what we have to understand that
the economic transformation or development
in a democracy leads to its wider or distribution
in society and not in the concentration of
wealth.
So, the political democracy or democratic
system of rule provides the opportunity to
individual, to prosper or to develop and express
themselves freely, without any restrictions
or constrains by the government.
In the undemocratic, authoritarian regime,
the very freedom of doing something or expressing
oneself freely, and expressing is compromised
to a great extent, even when there is some
basic, social and economic needs are met.
So, one of the challenges or criticisms to
democracy is this political instability that
leads to changes in the policies of the government.
The next is the short-term goals.
So, all the democratic leaders and the political
parties will care to formulate the policies,
which will serve the short-term interests.
And keeping in mind, the next election or
getting support in the next election and that
leads to a kind of compromise to the long-term
visions and long term goals of the society.
So, for example, say, the climate change or
the social and economic transformation, which
requires long-term planning or long-term investments.
So, in a democratic system, as the parties
and leaders are largely, governed by the short-term
goals or all the policies are directed towards
gaining the support in the next election,
then these long-term goals and objectives
are compromised somewhat.
The other challenge for the democracy is the
illiteracy and the economic inequality in
society.
So, if the voter or the electorates are not
educated enough to exercise their democratic
rights, to vote prudently, then that democratic
system of rule is always open for manipulation
by the politician.
So, the illiteracy is one of the biggest challenges
for the democracy, because people do not recognize
the significance of their votes.
And, the money and muscle power plays a role
in securing the votes, where people do not
take decisions prudently, and do not recognize
the significance of their vote in selecting
the rulers or selecting the parties or the
representative of the people.
So, politicians, may take advantage of the
voters illiteracy and leaves it argued about
the need of educated population in performing
democracy.
In many of the developing countries in Asia
and Africa, a majority of people are still
uneducated and lives in poverty.
And therefore, their political rights are
open for manipulation.
So, if people are unaware of their political
or democratic rights or if they are too poor,
then they may not exercise these democratic
or political rights, effectively.
And therefore, for the functioning of effective
democracy, a literate or educated population
with certain degree of economic prosperity
is absolutely, necessary.
And therefore, many people, argue that the
economic development provides the conducive
environment and circumstances for the functioning
of a democratic system of rule.
And in absence of that democracy in those
countries and societies, where there is deeply,
economic divide or large or the majority of
population are illiterate, then the democracy
or democratic system of rule is open for manipulation,
and so on.
So, the illiteracy and economic inequality
is the major challenges to democratic processes
and outcomes.
The next is the post-truth politics, which
is somewhat a recent phenomenon, especially,
with the rise of social media and new forms
of communication and technology.
So, this is the new form of challenges to
democracy all over the world.
And this popular democracy, which tends to
trigger the emotions and the psychologically,
driven statements, and policies by the parties
are the biggest beneficiary of the post-truth
politics.
So, in 2015, media and political scholar,
Jayson Harsin, coined the term, ‘regime
of post-truth’ and in post-truth politics,
debate is framed largely, by appeals to emotions
disconnected from the details of policy, and
by repeated assertion of talking points to
which factual rebuttals are ignored.
So, in this post-truth regime, you have the
statements made again and again, by the political
party, and 
it is ideologues which triggers certain emotions.
And the actual dispassionate rebuttal on the
basis of truth is somewhat, ignored or somewhat
sidelined.
So, the defining trait of post-truth politics
is the campaigners continue to repeat their
talking point, even when the experts in the
field and others provide proof to the contrary.
So, the opinion of experts or the truth really,
does not matter.
So, there is one statement which defines this
functioning of post-truth error.
So, if you do not know the answer, you can
say anything, which may not be the lie, but
which will be a kind of rebuttal of the actual
is issue or do not respond to the actual issue.
So, this post-truth regime gives you the scope
to make the points, even when that point is
not direct to the questions or the issue that
is at stake.
And the expert opinion or the actual fact
or the truth is somewhat, ignored and lies
or doctored or the manipulative statements
or the news becomes, the guiding measures.
So, political commentators have identified
post-politics ascending in many democratic
countries, especially, in the United States,
India, and United Kingdom among many other
democracies.
So, these are the other major challenges of
democratic processes and outcomes in the contemporary
times.
Now, if you, look at democracy and its features,
John Dewey, writes that democracy is more
than a form of government.
It is primarily, a mode of associated living
of conjoint communicated experience.
So, John Dewey’s, explanation of democracy
is something, which is much beyond a system
of rule, which teach the individual and the
community to live together or to live an associational
life.
So, in his celebrated work, Democracy and
Education, Dewey, sought to compare democratic
methods to scientific method in which public
is conceived as a community of enquirers trying
to solve their common problems.
And freedom of speech, elections and other
democratic institutions maintained by liberal
democracy enabled people to adopt rational
attitudes in politics.
So, beyond irrationalities, psychological
or the emotional issues, people began to argue
or communicate and participate in a rational
manner, if they take this mechanism of liberal
democracy effectively, and use it effectively.
So, a successful democratic politics does
not depend on the judgment of each citizen
considered separately.
So, the voice of each citizen matter in a
democratic set up, but it does not matter
independently, or separately, from the rest.
When people arrive at judgment to their constant
interaction, so what matters, is interaction,
dialogue, and deliberation that we have discussed
in the models of democracy.
And their decision is likely to be rational
and sound, when they discuss in a free and
fair manner on public issues in public platform,
where nobody, is denied his or her participation,
and they participate and argue in a rational
manner.
So, the chances are when the system of rule
ensures boarder participation, the decisions
it takes or the policy that it formulates
are most rational and so on taking into account
the consideration.
So, it ensures, the rational attitude to politics,
where the freedom of speech and expressions
or frequent elections ensures that the decisions
are taken through the collective discussions
or deliberations.
However, democracy has its own effects, but
no government is a panacea for all the social
and political evils.
Democracy is still better than other forms
of government such as aristocracy, oligarchy
or dictatorship.
So, there are different forms of government,
but in comparison to, their defects or demerits,
democracy is found to be, still a better form
of government.
And democracy is preferred form of government
across the world, and the idea of democracy,
as we have discussed has become the legitimizing
idea of modern times, where even the undemocratic
or authoritarian regime legitimize their rule
in the name of democracy.
So, the idea or the power of idea is very
much acknowledged across the globe among the
different systems of rule.
John and Stuart Mill, argued, that ‘after
giving full weight to all that appeared to
me well-grounded in the arguments against
democracy, I unhesitatingly, decided in its
favor’.
So, press, people and political parties have
now, freedom to criticize the government.
And this freedom to criticize the government
that one elects is possible and permitted
only, in a democratic system of rule.
So, on this basis, while acknowledging, the
various challenges and limits to democracy,
still one can argue that the future of democracy
is bright and it is likely, to remain a preferred
form of government.
Of course, there will be challenges, there
will be criticisms defects and demerits, through
democratic system of rule.
But, it is a kind of ever expanding, and in
a critical system of rule which ensures the
popular participation and gradually, taking
everyone along in the social and economic
transformation in the any society through
popular participation.
So, now if, you look at briefly, the relationship
between free press and democracy, which is
a regarded as absolutely necessary, for the
effectiveness, transparency and accountability
of government in a democratic system of rule.
So, Thomas Jefferson said that our liberty
depends on the freedom of press, so the our,
here is say, the liberty of the individual.
So, the guardian or the protector of individual
liberty is the freedom of press.
So, a free press ensures that the government,
which has the monopoly of violence or the
state which has the monopoly of violence should
not take away the liberty that is guaranteed
to the individual by the constitution in a
democratic system.
So, in a democratic society, individuals as
citizens has such certain inalienable rights,
and for the protection of those rights, it
is necessary, to have a free press.
So, Jefferson, argues that our liberty, depends
on the freedom of press and that cannot be
limited without being lost.
So, liberty can be lost, when you do not have
freedom of press.
So, freedom of press or free press is regarded
as a absolutely necessary, for the effective
functioning of democracy.
It ensures the accountability of the government.
Jefferson understood that a vibrant and free
press is critical to sustaining, critical
for sustaining the rule of law.
Beside, popular discourse and literature in
which the press is held as the fourth estate,
invoke this argument, where the vibrancy of
a democracy is seen in terms of freedom of
press.
So, how vibrant a country is in terms of democracy
is seen, how much freedom is given to the
press, to express its opinion independently,
to criticize the government, when there is
some violation of rules and procedures.
So, along with free speech, a free press is
indispensable for people to be informed about
the decisions of the government and its policies,
and to participate in the democratic processes.
A free press contributes to the transparency
of government.
And a free press serves as a kind of watch-dog,
monitoring government activities and ensuring
its accountability and transparency.
So, a free press ensures that the government
is accountable to the people.
It provides information about government decisions
to the people, to take informed decisions
and participate in the democratic process
in an empowered manner.
And that leads to the effectiveness in the
functioning of government and transparency,
and also, accountability.
So, particularly, in the age of digital news
or paid news, and information is available,
and accessible, in a very easily manner to
everyone.
Free media outlets can act as a forum, a place
in which people from all backgrounds discuss
different issues and ideas that concerns them.
And transparency, makes a government works
better, decrease the risk of corruption ultimately,
makes a country safer.
So, a free press ensures that the government
functions according to, the rules and procedures,
under which it should perform or all its functions.
If it transgrace that, it highlights, its
expose the government to public scrutiny,
and that ensures that no corruption, no manipulation
and such things is taken place.
And if it does, there has to be a political
or the electoral cause to and such manipulations
or translations.
So, however, change in the technology particularly,
the social media and the way people consume
news, now, have brought newer challenges such
as fabricated or doctored news that leads
to erosion of trust in the media, and erosion
of trust in institutions also, that is this
media or legal professions, weakens the foundation
of a democratic system.
So, in this new era or new digital era, where
the news is often, doctored or fabricated,
the challenge is to reassert of refund the
trust that one’s has with media, which is
regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy.
The other three being the executive, legislature
or the judiciary, free media in a or free
press in a democracy, world as if watch-dog
as the fourth pillar of a democracy, which
face a lot of credibility, you in this new
digital age, where the way people consume
news or the way, it is presented to them is
largely, through fabrication or in doctrinarian,
which actually, make people apprehensive or
suspicious to the news that they read.
And that creates a lot of erosion of trust,
and it further, leads to the weakening of
democratic foundation in a democratic country.
So, the threats, attacks, government suppressions,
accusations of fake news, and a growing mistrust
of the media all threaten the freedom of press
across the world.
Journalist today, faces unprecedented hardship
for simply, pursuing the truth.
So, the truth has a universal value in a democratic
system or in ensuring that government is accountable
to the rule.
And freedom of press was one such form which
ensures that the truth is pursued, but in
contemporarily societies, we have seen that
how journalist who pursued truth is persecuted.
They face threat from the community, from
the government.
And also, the acquisition of fake news to
the media, which questions or which interrogates
the government makes the functioning of free
media absolutely, challenging.
And freedom of press and speech are however,
corner stone of any democracy, and when that
is threatened, so is freedom.
So, with the reduction or with the limits
to the freedom of press, it also leads, to
reduction in the freedom that individual as
a citizen enjoy in a democracy.
So, beyond political divides, freedom of press
transients party and should be protected by
everyone.
So, the freedom of press has to be beyond
partisan politics, it should be a bi- partisan
issue, where everyone should come forward
to protect and promote free press.
John Stuart Mill has rightly, argued that
truth is the enemy of government control and
the freedom of press is the only way, to ensure
that press is not mere a propaganda of political
parties, and it works for the interests of
the people.
So, the last point, then we will conclude
this connection between freedom of free press
and democracy.
So, Thomas Erskine’s, speech during the
trial of Thomas Paine, in 1792, sum ups why
do we need a free press?
He argued that you cannot deal with things,
you do not know about.
And you can only, move forward from where
you are.
So, when you have the knowledge about, what
you are only, from there you can move forward.
So, do not we want to know, where we are?
Do not we want to know what is real, and what
is not?
So, what is truth or what is fake?
The truth is hard to take sometimes.
It is not always convenient, it may not be
convenient for those who exercise power or
those who are in the government, it may not
be convenient to many communities, but a truth
has its own value.
So, it can be disappointing or may not be
convenient, it can also, be ugly.
But, knowing having information about ourselves
and the world we live in that is the reality,
is part of our national identity.
Our democracy relies on an informed citizenry.
Thoughtful, fair, balanced, comprehensive
reporting in print and in photos or videos
may be the best way to know what is going
on, the way, to best inform ourselves.
Information is what keeps us free from tyranny.
So that is the role of free press in terms
of making oneself aware of what is going on
about the reality, and also, how to move forward
from the from that reality.
However, inconvenient, however ugly, or disappointing
that truth may be, but that is necessary,
for us to take step forward or to move forward
in the life as an individual or collective
identity.
So, information, which is provided by a free
press is therefore, absolutely, necessary,
which keeps us free from any kind of tyranny
or tyrannical rule.
So, thus, a free press is regarded as absolutely,
necessary, for democracy.
So, I hope you understand now, what is the
significance of free press in a democracy?
And, the functioning of the effective democracy.
In the absence of free press, there is no
public scrutiny of government which exercises
enormous legal power, monopoly of violence.
It is a free press which ensures or which
exposes the government and its functioning,
where if it transgrace or by pass certain
rules and established procedures.
So, a free press, is therefore, regarded as
sign code for the modern democracy.
So, with that, we conclude this lecture.
And you can refer to some of these books to
understand some of the themes that we have
discussed in today’s lectures.
So, that is all on this lecture, today.
And with that we conclude this lecture on
democracy.
The next topic is citizenship, which we will
discuss in the coming lectures.
So, thank you for listening and thank you
all.
