Democracy is a modern political shenanigan invented by the western bourgeoisie to denounce the aristocracy and its feudal power to gain victory for meritocracy at the close of the middle ages. The rise of bourgoiesie was accompanied by the emergence of the modern capitalism which sought to subordinate all human activities to the economic interests, as defined by Jacques Adda to whom I also owe some other insights in this text.
The first big obstacle for the emerging middle class in Europe was the ubiquitous power of the Church, including its power to name and shame royalties. The other structure to dismantle and subdue was the feudal hierarchy and its privileges. That should explain why the Protestant Reformation is viewed as a landmark in Europe´s history, and so also the Industrial Revolution followed by the France Revolution. The link between these two events is still awaiting a satisfactory analysis.
The bourgoisie thus unfettered could pursue its interests and mould the society according to its own values, continuing its march towards ever greater subordination of all human activities to its economic interests. That is how the modern capitalism has grown from one phase to another, thanks to new technologies that provide the bourgeoisie the tools for achieving its objectives of world dominance. All pervasive information control is high on the agenda in the present cyber age.
Power imbalances are at the root of most problems in any society. Everyone having equal power may not make sense. It is realistic for the sake of efficiency that some are given extra power. Such concentration of power can still be democratic, as long as those in charge are answerable to whomever they're managing and relinquish their power when called-upon to do so.
If people are seriously affected by something, they should have means to influence or resist what happens. This doesn't mean everyone gets everything they want. It just means that people's desires should be fairly balanced with the desires of everyone else involved. Any system that ensures that kind of balance-of-power is democratic. Social power usually occurs in organized structures of power - family, community, religion, interest group, class, movement, political party, etc. In the Indian democracy we are yet to see such a balance.
For this discussion the concept of freedom is essential. There is no such a thing as absolute freedom. It is relational, meaning it exists only in relation to our desires and our ability to satisfy them. People generally become conscious of freedom as a political problem only when a gap develops between their desires and their ability to satisfy them. The absence of restrictions is only one facet of freedom. We need to see it as “freedom to” access means and opportunities, and “freedom from” external coercion and restrictions to growth.
What we hear about "empowering" some groups of society involves helping them discover the actual patterns of power and freedom in their lives. Due to historical disabilities, such as the caste system in India, the “empowering” of lower castes is indispensable for a democracy to have meaning. Often such a situation is obfuscated by the dominant groups that would prioritise the gender inequality, without caring to point out to the fact that women of the dominant castes are far more privileged than the women of the lower castes and outcastes.
Democracy is not just a form of government through elections, but a kind of society. Effective democracy requires democratic control of all social powers, not merely government power. It is true that the government has the power to determine the rules governing the distribution of social power, and it is a keystone of a democratic system.
Free elections are only one form of social power and representatives represent whatever power puts them in office. But if election campaign is funded by the wealthy and controlled by their media, such a democracy is fatally tainted. The individual vote is a farce, unless there is also equality of other forms of social power, such as education and knowledge about about candidates and issues. When the media are controlled by those with money, the ballot can't fulfill its democratic function.
The popular dissatisfaction with the workings of the system is a warning that it is time to redistribute social power. There will continue to be individuals and groups with different inherited powers, but all groups and individuals should feel protected in a democratic system with a distribution and re-distribution of social powers making them interdependent with checks and balances.
The most disturbing inequalities are those people acquire from their social environment as they grow up and take their place in society - personality, education, experience, wealth, contacts, etc. These things give people most of the social power they have. They must be counterbalanced.
Jacques Adda stated that lack of transparency enabled the bourgeosie to attain its dominance. The sceptics will rightully ask if democracy promoted by the modern bourgeoisie can ever be free from the same malaise. The late Umberto Eco voiced this truth in his The Prague Cemetery (2010): “L’odio è la vera passione primordiale. È l’amore che è una situazione anomala. Per questo Cristo è stato ucciso: parlava contra natura.” [Hate is the real primordial passion. Love is a strange situation. That is why Christ was killed: he was preaching against nature].
Teotonio R de Souza is Founder-Director of the Xavier Centre of Historical Research (1979-1994), Fellow of the Portuguese Academy of History (since 1983), retired professor of Universidade Lusófona, Lisboa (1996-2014), author of Medieval Goa (1979,1994,2009), Goa to Me (1994), Goa outgrowing Postcolonialism (2014) and a dozen of edited works and over 200 published articles
