When Statecraft Trumps Democracy - Kumaraguru College of Liberal Arts & Science (KCLAS)

The potency of a word seldom depends on the word itself, but the experiences structuring it. Whether a said word would have the intended effect or not depends on the experiences which have come to be associated with it. The word ‘Democracy’ would ring differently to an Indian than, for instance, to a Chinese. Because the word democracy is experienced differently in India and China. Kai Strittmatter in his book “We have Been Harmonized: Life in China’s Surveillance State” argues that in China it is subversive to take the Chinese Communist Party at its word, so if the latter is insisting on democracy, Chinese would rather interpret the usage of democracy as a trap to expose those disloyal to the ideological foundations of Chinese Communist party. So, the word democracy in China would evoke dread. In India, on the other hand, democracy, universally, would evoke possibilities for change even if small and miniscule.

Democracy is always measured on criteria like existence of free speech, independence of institutions from powers that be, rule of law, and such. But what if in a country all such criteria are being met, but the experiences with which the word democracy was associated were getting shifted, and now a more aggressive form of Statecraft was hacking those experiences? How does this happen?

There is an undeniable innocence in democracy, like a fainting childhood memory, as democracy rests on a belief that disagreements between people and countries could all be resolved by means of dialogues and discussions. But this belief comes across as nostalgia of times long ago, when incessantly we are fed by social media, YouTube videos and podcasts how behind the veil of democracies, “Deep States” are working, which are plotting regime changes, weaponizing global supply chain, tourism, how crude real-politick is behind all moves taken by States. For instance – Why did the Supreme leader of Iran Ali Hosseini Khamenei make a controversial statement regarding the treatment of Muslim minorities in India? The social media was flooded with this question, with one conspiracy theory succeeding another, some suggesting that though China has started disengaging its troops on the India-China border, it still wants to exert pressure on and create difficulties for India in BRICS and other forums where China has a leading role and perhaps Iran’s statement concerning India needs to be seen from this angle. The truth of these assertions need not concern us now, but the consumption of such analyses and theories certainly brutalizes our imagination, everything comes across as politically motivated, ulterior motives seem to be at play, a deep-seated suspicion or paranoia sets in, and the world comes across as a morally bleak playground where only self-interest is at play.

Consumption of social media’s version of deep state theories, is not without consequence. Such contents engineer in a certain manner our imagination, which is otherwise always alert and sees ‘the other’ constantly as an opponent, who needs to be coerced rather than persuaded. Here, Statecraft comes across as more of an attractive proposition than the sluggish deliberations advocated by democracy. Statecraft with its subtle, devious ploys, played by mysterious but powerful people, who, behind the screen, pull one variable alongside the other, and lead to violence, regime changes etc., and all that can excite our vanity.

Social media with its deep conspiracy theories on anything and everything is feeding this war-like imagination in all those who are consuming such content. With such war-like experiences intoxicating us, the word democracy would not evoke in us a civilized manner of discussions or deliberations, but ideas on how democracy and its institutions can be weaponized for scoring certain points/goals.

The battle for preserving democracy should not only be fought on the level of tangible institutions, but in preserving, ensuring those experiences which value democracy as such, the inbuilt fragility which informs democratic checks and balances, and the innocence of trusting others.

At the risk of romanticizing, at its core, democracy is an expression of our poetic vulnerability in seeking others and talking to others. Social media warmongering even if it’s all truthful and sincere, is robbing us of this vulnerability/innocence. Should we risk our innocence even if social media is correct in its assumptions about the world? It is an open question.

Dr. Animesh Shukla

Assistant Professor, School of Political Science, KCLAS