“Democracy under threat”, “Populism”, “Polarization”, and “Authoritarianism” have been terms which have dominated our news diet over the past few years. That the ‘backsliding’ of democracy has become more prevalent across the globe in the recent years is something most citizens of the world can agree on, even if we disagree with the reasons and degree of this backsliding. We may also choose to deny the industrious output from the “think tank capitals” of the world like Geneva, Stockholm, New York, and Washington D.C, among others and their several reports and indices but we must acknowledge the lived experience of most of us that a sense of insecurity and disillusionment with democracy has increased in the recent years.
The increased prevalence of the different shades of autocratic leaders, inequality, and conflict in the democratic world are tell tale signs of a system under a lot of strain. Striking in these series of events is the fact that many of these undemocratic tendencies are garnering popular support largely within the democratic structures, i.e., democracy has been voting itself out or in any case, watching its own demise as a passive spectator. Even if we were to argue that democracy is not the best system of governance to begin with, which I must confess I believe it is, it does make for an interesting and important study to objectively understand the reasons and solutions to this decline.
While there can be many social, economic, and even psychological reasons for this decline, we already have a sizeable and constantly growing literature addressing their causes and remedies. I would instead like to focus on one particular cause of the decline of democracy that tends to get overlooked in my opinion and to draw the outlines of possible solutions of address it. Democracies are not religious enough to be sustainable.
For this, I would like to begin at the beginning. Ancient Athens. Ancient Athens was an experiment in popular government which hardly had a precedence, and I would argue, a successor, in terms of the revolutionary change it brought to the way people interacted with the systems that govern them. Of course, even as an Ancient Athenian fan boy, I am not blind to the serious deficiencies of the system, not in the least, the citizenship being limited to free born males, completely excluding the women and a disproportionately large slave population. The Athenians, however, offer important insights into making democracies work. They were the creators of the idea after all (again, this title too remains, in true Athenian fashion, highly debated).
The bottom-line being religion can coexist with democracy, and I would like to argue that the more religious the democracy the more democratic it will be.
Democracy in Athens was not just a political system. It was inherently enshrined as a way of life in the city. It was an intensely tangible and participative affair wherein close to 1 in 6 of all Athenian citizens got to hold political office in some point of their lives. Democracy was also a source of pride, with some people even naming their children Democracy. Democracy was also enshrined in the religious practices of the city with democracy considered a gift from Athena herself. The importance of such religious sanctity attached to democracy cannot be understated in a city where every day of the year except one was a festival in reverence to one god or the other of the Greek pantheon.
City life in general, and democracy in particular, was steeped in rituals and festivities that large sections of the city participated in. This ritualization of daily life obviously is not the monopoly of Athenians and almost every ancient society did not separate the religious from the political, no separation of church and state, so to speak. While the separation of church and state is an important tenet of modern liberal and secular nation states, a lot remains to be learnt from the church (read religions) in what can be done to strengthen democracy, and the Athenian example is particularly useful as that rare instance of nonseparation of the church and state co-existing within a democratic structure. The bottom-line being religion can coexist with democracy, and I would like to argue that the more religious the democracy the more democratic it will be. I believe this is exactly the problem with our modern-day democracies, they are getting less and less religious and if we are to fix democracy then we must reverse this trend.
Before I explain the reasons for religiosity in democracy being the solution, I would like to first explain what I mean by a religious democracy. A religious democracy has two components. The first being democracy within the organized religions in the community or clerical democracy. And the second being religion-like ritualization of democracy among the masses or mass democracy. Essentially, what we need is for the religions to become more democratic and the democracy to become more religion-like. I also believe that the forces of mass democracy will play a stronger role than clerical democracy in addressing our problems. I will come back to this point later.
I believe the following causes and their mentioned solutions can serve well to improve democratic systems around the world. The first is the failure of a completely representative approach to democracy. The Athenians were on to something when they chose direct democracy over a representative one. Simply put, a representative democracy is a system where people decide to delegate their decision-making powers to a small group of people called representatives to make decisions on their behalf. These representatives are often directly elected. In a direct democracy, however, the citizens engage in the decision-making process themselves. While the federal level and provincial levels of government being representative in nature due to the sheer number of citizens is understandable and desirable, after all, it is fairly cumbersome to conduct a parliament of crores of members when much smaller numbers have proven too rowdy to be very effective. This leaves a gaping hole in the participation rate of the people with their democracy. Democracy needs to learn from the Athenians and practice direct democracy at the local levels of government with a large number of political offices at this level and a quick turnaround using shorter terms. We must strive to get as many people into political offices as possible. The religion of democracy, i.e., mass democracy must pursue this goal with evangelical fervor. Democracies have a lot to learn from religions. Religions strive on the active participation of its followers in prayers and other liturgy. Mass democracy too must provide for its followers to offer their prayers in the form of governance. The Athenian system of drawing lots to decide on office holders provides a useful tool in achieving this goal. In addition to say two-thirds of the local government offices being directly elected, we can draw lots to randomly assign one-third of offices to people from among the voters. The assignment of offices to citizens by lottery will instill a sense of obligation in them and can help not just in breaking the chains of systemic oppression wherein certain vested interests and sections of people continue to capture political power but also help transition the perception of political power from one of privilege to that of service. No mean feat.
Secondly, democracy needs to learn how to transform abstract concepts into a tangible way of life. No other institution in history has done this better than religions. There isn’t, after all, a merely monetary element to the practice of donating to religious institutions in exchange of divine goodwill as the cynic would say. The donations also make the association between the devotee and the divine tangible, converting the high principle of devotion into a tangible practice understood by everyone. Democracy needs such practices too that make its abstract values of equality and freedom accessible to everyone. Such accessibility also helps in imbibing the values deeply in the general psyche of the population. The Athenians for example used theatre to culturally inculcate and solidify democratic principles. The theatre allowed its citizens to openly satire the political class of the day. The Athenian military too expected the richest of its citizens to contribute the most in the war, with every citizen, rich and poor, fighting side by side. Such practices solidified not just the power of the people but also idea of the “city” and inspired a sense of belonging. Clerical democracy must be strengthened today by removing any privilege assigned to the donors of the religious institutions. No shorter queues for higher fees and no front row seats. The Athenian theatre famously did not have a social hierarchy in its seating arrangement apart from a few front row seats reserved for a few priestesses who were part of the theatre rituals. For the mass democracy, a practice like every school student above a certain grade, preferably VIth grade onwards along with the teachers, being responsible for the cleanliness of the school’s premises including even the lavatories would go a long way in imbibing democratic values, especially making a huge dent to the caste hierarchies.
The assignment of offices to citizens by lottery will instill a sense of obligation in them and can help not just in breaking the chains of systemic oppression wherein certain vested interests and sections of people continue to capture political power but also help transition the perception of political power from one of privilege to that of service.
Thirdly, democracy needs to imbibe regular rituals that its followers can engage in. Religions understand the value of constant engagement in disseminating values. Whether it is Friday prayers in a mosque, Sunday service in a church, or a Saturday pooja in a temple. The regular festivals throughout the religious calendars also serve to renew the faith of the faithful. Democratic rituals and festivals will also have to take center stage in the lives of the citizens. Elections every few years are hardly enough engagement. You need regular festivals of democracy. Election to local offices every year or maybe twice a year might serve democracy well. At the colony level, for example, 6-months is a long enough time to affect reasonable change. Coupling term limits with cascading terms can ensure stability and higher participation at the same time. For example, a local body with one-year terms with one-third of its seats coming up for election every four months can keep the leaders on their toes and the people consistently engaged in their governance. Another feature of religions that democracy needs to learn from is starting young. The minimum age of holding local offices can definitely be lowered to 16 years to win over followers at an early
age. At the micro level of local government, the stakes are low enough for the young minds to experiment and hone their skills at political activity. That young minds can effectively compete with the most experienced of political scientists when it comes to political engagement and theorizing is evidenced in the public universities of our country which allow space for student politics.
Fourthly, democracy needs to learn how to create a sense of belonging to the democratic nation-state. The loneliness epidemic stands testimony to the failure of democracy to inculcate a sense of belonging. While we cannot make an argument that people in democratic countries are lonelier than those in undemocratic ones, one can definitely argue that a democratic system, which claims to be driven by participation of all its citizens is definitely expected to counter isolation and loneliness much better than an undemocratic one. This trend reveals the first chink in the armour of clerical democracy. There is
only so far that religion can go. Cultural and economic changes often grow separate from and a lot of times, in opposition to, religions. What can then a religious democracy do in response to harmful cultural, social, and economic changes that organized religions are not able to counter? Mass democracy must fill in the vacuum left by religions. But even in this bridging of a gap, mass democracy must learn from religions. Religions have often inculcated stigma and ostracization with practices it deemed undesirable. While democracies shouldn’t ostracize its citizens, the religion of democracy must inculcate certain socially desirable stigmas. It is crucial that these stigmas are structural and not ideological. For example, while a structural stigma can be attached to absenteeism from your local welfare association meetings, any stigma attached to opposing the decisions of the association would be ideological. An ideal democratic state would inculcate what I like to call a “dogmatic prejudice against dogma”. In all this, as can be ascertained by the reader, clerical democracy has its constraints. As mentioned earlier, the first constraint is the inertia that religious movements suffer from. They often fail to keep pace with cultural changes. Equally important is the fact that religions are limited by theology when it comes to how far they can democratize themselves. In this regard, my constant use of the Athenian example might be misleading as it tends to perpetuate the belief that we can draw a straight continuous line from Athens to modern day democracies. Democracies are a rare occurrence in history and the modern democracy is a fairly recent invention. The theologies of ancient and medieval religions were not created with democracy in mind. Hence, mass democracy will have to do the heavy lifting in this transformation. While the religions have a lot to teach democracy, democracy must make sure it does not learn the wrong lessons from religions. It must ensure that free will and personal freedoms are not compromised. That the individual doesn’t lose herself in the community. The success of mass democracy in building a sense of belongingness without trampling on personal freedoms would determine the long-term health of the democracies of the world.
While democracies shouldn’t ostracize its citizens, the religion of democracy must inculcate certain socially desirable stigmas.
Leave a Reply