Celebrating Sovereignty of People | Suranjita Ray

The election verdict for the 18th Lok Sabha saw celebrations across the country. The celebration was not confined to the victory of the political party or parties that would form the government. The mandate was also celebrated by many for electing a strong opposition alliance. As a strong opposition party privileges debates, discussions, agreements, disagreements, and dissent on issues of concern, it remains critical for the idea and practice of democracy. We see that the political parties capitalise on the contested forms of ‘sovereignty of people’ arising from the changing contexts that recast actual forms of state intervention in the name of the greater public interest. However, without making an ontological statement about what people’s sovereignty is made of, the centrality of the argument is to propose the desirability of celebrating differences and diversities of voices amongst people in a pluralist society. The historical, normative, and empirical understanding of people’s sovereignty in democracy has evolved significantly, and its consistent credibility needs to be ascertained by engaging with diverse voices. While periodic elections, free press, public hearings, organised protests, people’s movements, campaigns, public opinion, public action, and an active civil society often channel the diverse voices of the citizens, thereby legitimising democratic governance, it is equally important to unravel the experiences of the state that people encounter in their everyday lives.

Everyday Experiences of Unfreedom

Though in a democracy, the government needs to examine the priorities of public criticism and give space to debates, over the years, it has been a conscious strategy not to build the political capital of its people in terms of questioning the legitimacy of the privileged ruling class. The voices of dissent against the ruling party have been undermined. The discriminatory role of the state in dejecting and contesting the collective consciousness of minorities in the name of universalism is the most ill-deserved act in the history of democracy. The state usurped powers over itself to either emasculate people’s struggles or crush them in the name of law and order. It legitimised a political culture that tolerates repression against people, which curbed people’s protests. We have seen how the political institutionalisation of social movements has depoliticised issues of concern by bringing the debates to a close. When media and educational institutions act as the state apparatus and as ‘custodians of consensus’, they become inimical to democracy. The shrinking space for conversations and deliberations has seen an insistent subversion of democracy and pluralism.

The vision of ‘New India’ propagated as a singular entity saw massive societal polarisation. We find disenfranchisement and polarisation being weaponized to strengthen the process of consolidation and domination of a particular faith or culture. Deepening communal and caste divides resulted in deep distrust of democratic values of tolerance and inclusion. Prejudice, discrimination, and bigotries exacerbated fears for many. This has resulted in the marginalisation and exclusion of others. The increasing coercive response of the state converted several regions into constant conflict zones. This breeds a sense of insecurity, disappointment, anger, and helplessness that grips the minority community across the country. People feel increasingly threatened, isolated, alienated, marginalized, oppressed, suppressed, and excluded. People’s lived experiences suggest increasing anxiety, insecurity, disquiet, and vulnerability amongst the large sections of society as they are browbeaten, daunted, and dismissed. The everydayness of violence is normalized. The aftermath of violence filters into the layers of memory of the young and old, leaving the deepest scar which impacts one’s everyday life. The alacrity to target diversity as a menace to unity not only disgraces pluralism but also threatens a democratic culture that gives space to diversities and differences, which are fundamental to strengthening a democratic state. The political trajectory of the use of power to condition or constrain the voices of the people for vested interests raises larger issues regarding the nature of people’s sovereignty.

By voting for the opposition, people have fearlessly contested the attempt of the ruling class to construct a consensus on the new narrative, the hegemony of a particular idea of ‘New India’. The electoral victory for the opposition posed a more fundamental question. We saw widespread economic discontentment amongst the people. The most vital issues of employment and basic needs were relegated to peripheral status. The everyday experiences of the majority of marginalised communities contest the success stories of ‘equality and empowerment resulting from economic growth and development’ which are highlighted by the developmental state. The narratives of agony and struggle to survive unfold issues that are central to their distress, which are sites of continuous oppression, conflict, and paradox. The failure of the state to secure basic needs for its citizens not only illustrates a failure of democracy but also undermines equal citizenship. An incredible resurgence of voices from the margins suggests a growing political awareness of everyday violations of people’s rights across the country. The electoral verdict therefore places an extra responsibility on the opposition parties to live up to the expectations of the voters who trusted them.

Upholding Democratic Values

The democratic state has to be representative and responsive in assuring people a sense of security, even when their voices are not in conformity with the ruling class. The divergent, plural, and multiple viewpoints, perspectives, and interpretations weave together a holistic understanding. A democratic state should represent diversity to strengthen a democratic political culture that prevents a polarized society that escalates hostility. Political parties must assure people’s trust by building a political culture that not only celebrates multiplicity and diversity but also does not disadvantage engaging with contradictory and conflicting viewpoints. A major prerequisite of a genuine pluralist democracy is not to ignore the cleavages and conflicts in society, or else democracy will be reduced to the worst kind of parochial politics. Therefore, it is critical to uphold the core democratic values and cardinal principles of secularism, multiculturalism, diversity, and pluralism.

While the sovereignty of the people is the strength of a democratic country, a large mass of common people feel alienated from the political process. Their voices have been marginalized in the mainstream discourse on development. This needs to be reversed. People need to re-engage in politics by exercising their right to make a political choice about democratic values and principles, which alone will change the adversarial style of ruling that feeds distrust. A constant search for understanding the complexities of new issues and challenges in various contexts is important. The resentment towards the dominant voice of the majority emerges from a commonly experienced denial of freedom for minorities to raise their voices and concerns. It is important to liberate the people from oppression and subjugation and empower them towards self-determination. Freedom from deprivation, exclusion, poverty, and hunger needs to be recognised not just as a human right but also as a political right involving the struggle to liberate from multi-dimensional domination, oppression, and marginalisation.

The idea and practice of people’s sovereignty matter and need to go beyond symbolism. It should aim at empowering the powerless. The state should intervene to create conditions to enable the deprived and marginalised to voice their concerns and participate in the development plans that impact their lives and livelihoods. The strategy of development should uphold freedom, rights, and values that protect basic needs, livelihood, ecological sustainability, and socio-economic justice and lead to the empowerment of the deprived and marginalised. The most ordinary or common citizen can be free from poverty, hunger, and distress when the majority are not alienated from their livelihood resources, when caste-based atrocities do not become a feature of the nation’s daily life, when people across religions do not fear to practice their culture or traditions, when freedom of speech is not muzzled, when women do not experience insecurity in their routine lives, when ‘human dignity’ and ‘freedom’ as fundamental and central values of civilisation are respected, and when paths of hatred, hostility, distrust, intolerance, and violence are denunciated. The political capability of the state should move beyond a rights-based approach and good governance. It should prevent the political disempowerment of a large mass of people.

The constitutional responsibility of the democratic state to secure basic rights for its people must not become the prerogative of the state. The persistence of distress and denial of freedom must be seen as morally outrageous and politically unacceptable in the context of democratic transformations. Equality, freedom, rights, justice, dignity, and inclusiveness cannot remain mere abstract ideas but need to be embodied in ground reality. They need to be understood in relation to each other, not in silos. Political parties should stop using the concerns and demands of people for electoral gains and work out strategies of development to ensure redistribution of the basic productive resources to make India far more inclusive and democratic. The aspirations of the large masses need to be fulfilled, or else such ‘moments of celebration’ will continue to remain emblematic and paradoxical in reality.

(Author: Suranjita Ray teaches Political Science at Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi. She can be contacted at suranjitaray[at]dr.du.ac.in)