Modi’s statement “Democracy has delivered” is lifted but false. Look at Communist China

Representative image of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping | Illustration: Soham Sen | The imprint

Text size:

UPresident S Joe Biden hosted a virtual “Democracy Summit” last week. This summit kicked off a full year of action to promote democracy around the world with another follow-up – in person this time – to be held in Washington with Biden once again as host. There is no doubt that democracy has been in decline across the world since the turn of the present century, both in established democratic states and among the laggards and aspirants. It will take more than a few summits to tackle the underlying causes, but the initiative is still laudable. It can help change the global political discourse in favor of liberal democracy.

Democracies do not always work together to promote democracy in other countries. When the interests of two states converge, shared democratic values ​​can strengthen the relationship between them. But shared democratic values ​​do not trump the pursuit of competing interests.

During the Cold War, being democratic nations did not prevent India and the United States from being on the other side of the geopolitical barrier. Shared interests can lead democracies to work even as allies of undemocratic states. In order to contain the then-Soviet Union, the United States was more than willing to ally itself with Communist China even when the latter was in the throes of the ultra-radical Cultural Revolution in the 1970s. India and the Soviet Union maintained a strong strategic partnership for three decades – between 1960 and 1990 – although they were on either side of the ideological divide. Keep in mind that for Biden, the summit serves as an instrument to put his main geopolitical rivals – Russia and China – on the defensive, but this is of limited use.

The geopolitical dimension has imposed itself in the inevitable controversy over which countries to invite and which to avoid. Judging by their democratic credentials, it is difficult to justify excluding Bangladesh and Bhutan when Pakistan was invited. Pakistan’s geopolitical usefulness, especially in dealing with the nearby turbulence in Afghanistan, could have weighed heavily. But it must have been embarrassing to watch Pakistan decline the invitation. Earning long-time benefactor China brownie points was more important to Islamabad than the once-highly regarded American superpower certification.

Read also: The Quad partnership is a “real and contemporary arrangement” for examining current problems, according to Jaishankar

Why the Summit was necessary

The objectives of the Summit were threefold: to fight against authoritarianism, to fight against corruption and to promote respect for human rights.

According to reports received so far, the only tangible result is the Export Control and Human Rights Initiative, launched by the United States, Australia, Denmark and Norway. It seeks to prevent authoritarian governments from abusing dual-use technologies to investigate and hack communications from political opponents, journalists, activists and minority communities. I would have expected India to be part of this group, especially after Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the Summit’s attention to the need for global standards regarding the use of digital technologies for social media and cryptocurrencies, which he says have the potential to undermine democracies. Although he did not specify it, it is a fact that digital technologies can strengthen democracy by allowing wider dissemination of information, increasing transparency and accountability.

Prime Minister Modi said India’s message to the world is that “democracy can deliver, has delivered and will continue to deliver.” It was an uplifting message, but the point is that over the past decade and more, democracies have been seen to be less successful than authoritarian states, communists or others, in providing the most basic services than those in power. ordinary citizens expect the state – public safety, education and health.

Read also: First, Pakistan is boycotting the Biden summit. Now Imran Khan calls for stronger ties with US

China has shown a head start

It cannot be denied that across the world, the Chinese experiment under authoritarian rule has been recognized as a spectacular success, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, creating the world’s most modern cutting-edge infrastructure and offering a better standard of living for its population. Whether this has been achieved at the cost of a widespread violation of human rights and the degradation of its ecology is not always obvious.

There is what one might call “dictator’s envy”, or the longing for a strong and powerful leader who could overcome all human and material barriers to bring peace and prosperity. Like it or not, there is pessimism about democracy within democracies, and this is a greater challenge for a government rather than the machinations of authoritarian states and their leaders.

The survival of democracies needs introspection among its champions. Why have the people turned away from what once seemed to be the best and most evolved political arrangement in human history? In my opinion, at the end of the cold war, the liberals got lost. They acquiesced in the calculated attempt to equate liberal democracy with free markets, selling the dubious proposition that free markets inevitably lead to democracy. The role of public policies in ensuring equity in access to basic services and opportunities for advancement gradually diminished as market orthodoxy increasingly took hold. A smaller and smaller group of winners grabbed the growing pie, while the ranks of losers grew steadily. These inequalities are not the result of globalization or the nature of technological change. They are the result of the failure of public policies. The democratic state has abdicated its responsibility to ensure the fair distribution of the fruits of globalization and technological progress. We ended up with levels of income and wealth inequality, which are simply not compatible with democracy. Populism is rooted in frustration with growing inequalities, and polarization is inherent in such a situation. Democracies must find a way to fix it, otherwise they are unlikely to survive. Or they can turn into what are now described as electoral autocracies.

Prime Minister Modi also spoke about India’s inclusion policy. This is indeed an important feature of democracy and must be broadened. Only a responsible citizen can be an actor in democracy.

India is the largest democracy in the world and, in many ways, a unique experience in celebrating plurality within a democratic regime. Its success as a democracy may well determine the fate of democracy itself.

Shyam Saran is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Senior Fellow CPR. He was the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Climate Change between 2007 and 2010. Opinions are personal.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and Telegram

Why the news media is in crisis and how to fix it

India needs free, fair, uninhibited and interrogative journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media are in a crisis of their own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, giving in to crass spectacle in prime time.

ThePrint employs the best young reporters, columnists and editors. To maintain journalism of this quality, it takes smart, thoughtful people like you to pay the price. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can do it here.

Support our journalism


About Chris McCarter

Check Also

Pound rate against dollar hits 10-week best as dollar slips and stocks rise

The exchange rate between the pound and the dollar (GBP/USD) jumped above 1.1700 and posted …