ELECTION 99
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS '98
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

For Better or Worse

With Communism defeated, if not dead and buried, it is now unchallenged opinion in the West that democratic systems have served the world far better than the authoritarian ways they were ranged against. Even in much of the developing world, this view is not unconventional; countries like India strive to hold faith with representative government, and others like China and Cuba have recognised at least the material shortcomings of forced equality. The few despots still making the news, from Belgrade and Brazaville to Baghdad, are fairly under fire, with their supportive regimes in Moscow and elsewhere mostly disreputed and clinging to a fading past.

Getting here hasn't been easy, though. The history of global affairs over the last few hundred years has been moulded by conflict. This has not always been in physical terms either, the conflict of ideas has been just as important. Doctrinaire religion pitted against individual choice, and civil liberties set against the state were the original signposts of conflict within open societies; victories in these arenas opened other doors to better worlds.

The dregs of these battles, however, still exist, even within democratic societies. And recently, the spotlight has shone increasingly on them as they reveal the rough edges of social organisation in the free world. Nowadays, the arguments are a bit more involved, the grand designs having been established. A society that permits or encourages proselytization is worse than one that prohibits it, according to some. And better, according to others. Civilian control of the armed forces is better, according to some, and a deterrent to strong government, according to others. Democracy is an impediment to rapid industrialisation according to some, and an asset according to others. And so on and so forth.

In many of these arguments, we attempt to define the very essence of what it is to be free, and to determine how we shall make choices that safeguard and promote our freedoms. In stumbling along these debates, though, we have stubbed our toes on a large block; we have assured ourselves that human dignity being supreme, society is best served by collective determination of the public good. On the face of it, that would be just fine, but we have added a cardinal error. We have begun arguing social organisation without pausing to wonder who we are.

The resulting factionalism has inevitably led to completely the opposite of what one might desire. The defeat of authoritarian governments has ironically come at a price, the noble idea of an individual's unquestioned relative worth. On the streets and in the courts, the laws of the land protect Muslims from marauding Hindus (that's the popular theory, anyway), blacks from oppressive whites, and sundry other potentially subjugated groups from potentially hurtful others. Protection from these real or imagined crimes, however, hasn't brought equality. We've got groups and group rights displayed in bold letters everywhere, but almost everything about them is wrong, because we're also touting individual worth at the same time.

Nevertheless, the ideal is woven well enough into social organisation of every sort. The premise of modern democracy has become that every person has a perfect right to an uneducated opinion just as much as an educated one. Worse still, affirming those opinions, however poorly founded they might be, has become par for the course. Only the numbers in political equations count anymore, whether it be in determining who goes to college, or who becomes President, or who gets to obstruct traffic in the name of free expression of religion and speech.

As we go around the election bend yet another time, it is worth reminding ourselves that the last few years beginning with Mandal, more than anything else, have seen the erosion of reasonable high ground to which we might aspire. Caste, faith and other dubious divisions appear to be the only forces that matter anymore, and in their name every institution is perverted to serve a small minority of people. Meanwhile, even the simplest necessities are denied to vast sections of the population, without even the appearance of an apology from those empowered to assure them.

Much of this has come about because, as in many other parts of the world, we have embraced the notion of nominal equality in society without examining its foundation. Our best students are denied the opportunities to reach toward their highest potential, our better-managed states are held to ransom by the larger states with runaway populations, our crooks are appointed to the highest positions in the land. The only yardstick that has completely been given the go-by in every public assessment is ability.

When in fact even a child can tell how critical merit is in every aspect of human endeavour. It is not a reach to imagine that our cabinet ministers, whatever their strong inclinations for the jobs they hold, are not particularly able or qualified to execute them in the national interest. So many of our civil servants, who allegedly fill this hole in government, are warming chairs in the halls of privilege instead. While non-ideological and mostly factional political battles rage in the media and on the streets, the familiar drumbeat of squalor, illiteracy and poverty is resonant.

More than anything, any overhaul of government and social organisation in India must do two things -- eliminate state-sponsored divisions on any grounds other than economic considerations, and at the same time accord merit its due place. I'm all for empowerment and upliftment, but those ideals are not at odds with opportunities and economic growth. If our MPs recognised that, they would not spend their last days in medical beds of foreign hospitals touting a false equality; instead some Indian doctor of unknown caste and faith would heal them just as well and at far less cost.

For too long, we have asserted the equality of all persons, and blindly appropriated from it a system completely devoid of merit. Where representation is not judged by one's ideas, where a politician's honesty is not even in the realm of public discussion. I'm all for equality, but while we're beating its drum, let's start with a promise to ourselves, that in comparing things of unequal value, we must demonstrate a willingness to recognise their differences.

I can imagine that the call for merit-based social organisation will inevitably draw the charge that it is self-serving. It is true enough that many of us are among the privileged, and it is possible that our opportunities will expand in a society that nourishes merit. However, to imagine that denying the cream of society is helpful is simply stupid; people merely move to countries with more opportunities, taking with them the gains they've acquired at home. The net result is that the establishment is quite able to take care of its needs and the poor are merely left to fend for themselves.

Some ideas are better than others, some institutions are better than others, some values are better than others. Stroking main street's ego is apparently egalitarian, but it isn't sensible. It is possible to develop convoluted arguments designed to impress upon us the need for social upliftment, even at the tremendous toll they now take. But it is to our great detriment that we ignore the truth -- for better or for worse, there is such a thing as being better.

Ashwin Mahesh