Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
‘But surely, you cannot favor a leader not willing to abide by the rules of democracy’ – I thought I had landed a knockout punch in a friendly yet boisterous political debate. The response was swift, and indignant – ‘Only a strong authoritarian can clean up this mess’. This retort and its underlying ethos are by now a familiar political sentiment around the world. ‘Only they can dig us out of the hole’ – fill in the blanks with your favored populist leader – predominantly of the right – and you’ve got the crux of the cult following that most of them have earned in their respective countries. However, this is not only a misguided premise – as geopolitical history teaches us, but also morally indefensible. The proliferation of this sentiment among the well-to-do middle classes of the world is outright dangerous and largely based on a distorted sense of reality.
But first, let us put to bed the notion that this is exclusively a phenomenon of the political right. A quick look back at the past century will be sufficient to convince us that the Stalinist regime in Soviet Union, Marxist movements in China and Cuba – all revolutionary dictatorships in their own right – were largely left-leaning in ideologies. It so happens that these movements are inextricably linked to anti-establishment ideals and its current crop has emerged in the backdrop of several decades of proliferation of liberal democracies the world over.
A historical perspective indicates that for the most part, such upheavals led to a decline in long-term peace, economic prosperity and social stability. Among other complex factors, Russia, Germany and Italy were led down this treacherous terrain by their chosen autocrats of the early 20th century. Currently, North Korea is an extreme example, exemplified by the stark contrast with its flourishing southern sibling. Even the failed Arab spring movements could be argued to be an indictment on the long-term effects of totalitarian societies. Such regimes extinguish political will and intellectual plasticity in society. Consequently, when that regime change is imminent, the ensuing political vacuum is rife for another chaotic takeover. China, which has flourished in many ways under a strongman dictatorial government is truly an exception in this regard, although it remains to be seen whether its continued flourishing is sustainable.
The moral argument for opposing such a movement is quite simple. You only need to put yourself in the shoes of a political opponent to realize how fraught with danger it is. By stepping into authoritarian shoes, a political leader excuses herself from the core of her job description – to broker compromises. It is in fact, often a recipe to ensure societies oscillate between the extremes of revolutionary movements with diametrically opposite ideologies. One can notice these tendencies in some countries in Central and South America that have shifted from left leaning to right leaning authoritarianism in recent years. A functioning democracy ensures a broader political conversation in society – culminating in the ability to exercise choice with a vote. One cannot overstate how important this conversation and this sense of collective power is for a healthy, functioning polity.
This isn’t to say that some degree of high-handedness by leaders may never be tolerated, and in some cases, welcomed as necessary for progress. Take the case the El Salvador, whose president has successfully tamped down on gang violence in one of the world’s most dangerous countries and continues to gain popularity despite his authoritarian overtures. This theme of an autocratic war on crime has played out in various contexts in Mumbai, New York City and most recently in Uttar Pradesh—all of which could be argued as net positives for society. But these are true exceptions where people already dealing with an unfavorable status quo were willing to gamble on an alternative with significant risks.
Yet this is not the reality for a majority of the middle class, where an indifference and even a soft support for authoritarianism has taken root. This is driven by perceived cultural, rather than existential threats. For this growing section, a slide towards authoritarianism dwarfs in comparison to the professed cultural shock of the opposing political ideology coming to power. This is where we must understand the deception and the distortion of reality in our media bubbles. Are we really that discontented? That different from each other? And that desperate that we are really willing to risk tearing the ramparts down? A tilt into authoritarianism will not stop at embarrassing the liberals or owning the elites. It will destroy the carefully built highways of progress. Yes, these may be damaged, partly ill-conceived and incomplete, but they need rebuilding, not destruction or abandonment. Educated middle classes around the world must wake up from this fantasy and stand firmly on the ground of democracy.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.