These articles never really seem to give me a sense of the will of the people in India, with regard to the question of what percentage of people prefer a secular state and what percentage prefer an officially Hindu one.
The language used also seems selectively inflammatory - Indian is described as potentially "Hindu Supremacist" but Pakistan is seldom described as "Muslim Supremacist," though by any definition it is. Israel is not often described as "Jewish Supremacist," although it is that, and the nations of Europe, with their state religions, however nominal they may be, are not generally referred to as "Christian Supremacist."
All this is to say, what the Hindutva crowd wants doesn't seem much removed from international norms, and I'm never quite sure why I'm expected to feel that the refined preferences of the Westernized founding elite must carry the day forever.
How different is India than the US? India has Hinduism. We have CRT. In both cases, a dominant religion is imposed by the government. Secularism went out of style in both India and the USA years ago.
Even if we grant the author's characterization of the illiberalism of Indian society and government, there's no indication that religion is the cause. Other national majorities have behaved even worse towards their minorities than what's described here, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, and largely-religious populations have been much more liberal.
“The judiciary, designed as a counter to majoritarian impulses, is among the institutions that have capitulated to Modi’s illiberalism. “
It seems the author is struggling to reconcile his reverence for “democracy” and his reverence for “secular liberalism.” I think the term that the author should use instead of “majoritarian” is “democratic”. If Indians decide some law by a democratic process that the author doesn’t like, it is still democratic, not “majoritarian.”
There is no “decline in democracy” just because the democratic population decides to do something the author doesn’t like. If a democracy decides to enslave 15% of its population, that is democratic. It might be morally repugnant, but there is nothing about democracy that guarantees a majority won’t be morally repugnant.
Respect for rights is part of the everyday definition of 'democracy.' It is also the one used by the sources cited here that evaluate countries on a 'democracy index' (The Economist, V-Dem). Long-ago (and for understandable reasons) 'democracy' incorporated much of the substantive meaning of 'liberalism' into its own meaning.
I'd personally be happy to strictly use the word 'democracy' to mean 'plurality rule.' Perhaps we could more readily make important distinctions if we did so. However, that is not the common usage. You need to be charitable to the author when interpreting their statements or arguments, to understand them, and prior to critiquing them.
The incorporation of “liberalism” into the meaning of “democracy” is driven by the ideologically interested manipulation of language of some “liberals.” Historically speaking, there was nothing essentially “liberal” about democracy until some “liberals” attempted to make it so. I’m not sure what “everyday definition” you are referring to.
Furthermore there is a fundamental logical tension between aspects of some classical liberal ideology and democracy (such as described by Greek philosophers or most dictionaries in the 20th century.) Republics formed in the past few centuries such as the US include in their constitutions structures that consciously reduce the power of “democracy” precisely because purer democracies were thought to be chaotic and unstable.
Ultimately there is no way to understand some authors when they use terminology like democracy in a sloppy way. They are writing gobbilygook that only makes “sense” emotionally to those who identity with the author’s political tribe. Rationally, it is garbage. But people are mentally adept at turning clouds into faces.
If we want to make our concepts as clear as possible, as you advocate, consider separating the topics of "can the government do anything that it wants" from "who decides who is in the government." "Democracy" need not mean that the answer to the 2nd question is "yes" as you imply, it might just refer to how the government is selected. Indeed, we have a term for the system where the government cannot do anything it wants, but the people choose the government "liberal democracy."
As a practical matter there is fundamental law (e.g. a constitution or body of common law) and there are decisions about who enacts and enforces it. For the latter, elective government ('democracy') is far-and-away the least-bad option. Thus the wedding of democracy and liberalism. While not every majoritarian system is liberal, virtually no non-majoritarian one is (or can long-remain) liberal. In history the typical alternative is dynastic rule (of which monarchy and aristocratic oligarchies are species). While elections are a weak mechanism for holding rulers accountabile to the law, they are stronger than in the other systems above.
Rather than a linguistic ruse, this is the reason "democracy" and "liberalism" have overlapping meanings. You can't really have the latter without (a limited version of) the former. And, we have clearer terms ("liberal democracy") if we really need to get picky.
It doesn’t matter if you can’t have some thing without another thing. If x depends on y, it does not logically follow that y should incorporate x into its “meaning.” A flower cannot grow without sunlight but that doesn’t mean that sunlight somehow has “overlapping meaning” with flower. We can’t start replacing the word flower with the word sunlight and expect what we say makes sense. Furthermore, too much sunlight can even *kill* flowers. Democracy likewise often leads to chaos or tyranny, not “liberalism.” It would be irrational to incorporate the definition of a flower into the definition of sunlight based on the dependency of the flower on sunlight. It’s irrational to incorporate the definition of liberalism into the definition of democracy for that reason. But as I already stated, reason has nothing to do with it.
As for the US, it’s democratic elements are limited. The “liberalness” of its constitutional structure was determined by a minority of the people who actually became citizens of the country -- or slaves. “The people” absolutely did not choose the government of the US, although that is certainly the fantasy the constitution extols in its opening line. Fortunately it’s a living document and it might grow up to reflect reality some day.
I will restate my main critique of the author though. He simultaneously laments “majoritarian impulses” in India while also lamenting a “decline of democracy.” Its nonsense. It’s not a decline in democracy it appears; it appears that India’s particular democracy is leading to a decline of secular liberalism. “The people” of India, it seems, may not be particularly interested a separation between church and state. Unless he can demonstrate that a majority of Indian citizens would actually prefer to have the government be neutral regarding Hinduism and Islam, the problem isn’t a lack of “democracy.”
I’m personally not a fan of theocracies, whether democratic or not. Just like I am not a fan of communism, whether democratic or not. Democratic processes have their place and virtue, but “democracy” isn’t holy and it doesn’t guarantee a virtuous society.
These articles never really seem to give me a sense of the will of the people in India, with regard to the question of what percentage of people prefer a secular state and what percentage prefer an officially Hindu one.
The language used also seems selectively inflammatory - Indian is described as potentially "Hindu Supremacist" but Pakistan is seldom described as "Muslim Supremacist," though by any definition it is. Israel is not often described as "Jewish Supremacist," although it is that, and the nations of Europe, with their state religions, however nominal they may be, are not generally referred to as "Christian Supremacist."
All this is to say, what the Hindutva crowd wants doesn't seem much removed from international norms, and I'm never quite sure why I'm expected to feel that the refined preferences of the Westernized founding elite must carry the day forever.
So identity politics have come to India. Wow, I guess identity politics are 'bad' in India, but 'good' in the USA.
How different is India than the US? India has Hinduism. We have CRT. In both cases, a dominant religion is imposed by the government. Secularism went out of style in both India and the USA years ago.
Incredibly disturbing. I'll have to look further into a lot of this, but you put this topic way higher on my priority list to understand.
Fascinating and extremely disturbing piece. I'm grateful for this information, but sad to see a great nation go toward autocracy.
Even if we grant the author's characterization of the illiberalism of Indian society and government, there's no indication that religion is the cause. Other national majorities have behaved even worse towards their minorities than what's described here, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, and largely-religious populations have been much more liberal.
“The judiciary, designed as a counter to majoritarian impulses, is among the institutions that have capitulated to Modi’s illiberalism. “
It seems the author is struggling to reconcile his reverence for “democracy” and his reverence for “secular liberalism.” I think the term that the author should use instead of “majoritarian” is “democratic”. If Indians decide some law by a democratic process that the author doesn’t like, it is still democratic, not “majoritarian.”
There is no “decline in democracy” just because the democratic population decides to do something the author doesn’t like. If a democracy decides to enslave 15% of its population, that is democratic. It might be morally repugnant, but there is nothing about democracy that guarantees a majority won’t be morally repugnant.
Respect for rights is part of the everyday definition of 'democracy.' It is also the one used by the sources cited here that evaluate countries on a 'democracy index' (The Economist, V-Dem). Long-ago (and for understandable reasons) 'democracy' incorporated much of the substantive meaning of 'liberalism' into its own meaning.
I'd personally be happy to strictly use the word 'democracy' to mean 'plurality rule.' Perhaps we could more readily make important distinctions if we did so. However, that is not the common usage. You need to be charitable to the author when interpreting their statements or arguments, to understand them, and prior to critiquing them.
The incorporation of “liberalism” into the meaning of “democracy” is driven by the ideologically interested manipulation of language of some “liberals.” Historically speaking, there was nothing essentially “liberal” about democracy until some “liberals” attempted to make it so. I’m not sure what “everyday definition” you are referring to.
Furthermore there is a fundamental logical tension between aspects of some classical liberal ideology and democracy (such as described by Greek philosophers or most dictionaries in the 20th century.) Republics formed in the past few centuries such as the US include in their constitutions structures that consciously reduce the power of “democracy” precisely because purer democracies were thought to be chaotic and unstable.
Ultimately there is no way to understand some authors when they use terminology like democracy in a sloppy way. They are writing gobbilygook that only makes “sense” emotionally to those who identity with the author’s political tribe. Rationally, it is garbage. But people are mentally adept at turning clouds into faces.
If we want to make our concepts as clear as possible, as you advocate, consider separating the topics of "can the government do anything that it wants" from "who decides who is in the government." "Democracy" need not mean that the answer to the 2nd question is "yes" as you imply, it might just refer to how the government is selected. Indeed, we have a term for the system where the government cannot do anything it wants, but the people choose the government "liberal democracy."
As a practical matter there is fundamental law (e.g. a constitution or body of common law) and there are decisions about who enacts and enforces it. For the latter, elective government ('democracy') is far-and-away the least-bad option. Thus the wedding of democracy and liberalism. While not every majoritarian system is liberal, virtually no non-majoritarian one is (or can long-remain) liberal. In history the typical alternative is dynastic rule (of which monarchy and aristocratic oligarchies are species). While elections are a weak mechanism for holding rulers accountabile to the law, they are stronger than in the other systems above.
Rather than a linguistic ruse, this is the reason "democracy" and "liberalism" have overlapping meanings. You can't really have the latter without (a limited version of) the former. And, we have clearer terms ("liberal democracy") if we really need to get picky.
It doesn’t matter if you can’t have some thing without another thing. If x depends on y, it does not logically follow that y should incorporate x into its “meaning.” A flower cannot grow without sunlight but that doesn’t mean that sunlight somehow has “overlapping meaning” with flower. We can’t start replacing the word flower with the word sunlight and expect what we say makes sense. Furthermore, too much sunlight can even *kill* flowers. Democracy likewise often leads to chaos or tyranny, not “liberalism.” It would be irrational to incorporate the definition of a flower into the definition of sunlight based on the dependency of the flower on sunlight. It’s irrational to incorporate the definition of liberalism into the definition of democracy for that reason. But as I already stated, reason has nothing to do with it.
As for the US, it’s democratic elements are limited. The “liberalness” of its constitutional structure was determined by a minority of the people who actually became citizens of the country -- or slaves. “The people” absolutely did not choose the government of the US, although that is certainly the fantasy the constitution extols in its opening line. Fortunately it’s a living document and it might grow up to reflect reality some day.
I will restate my main critique of the author though. He simultaneously laments “majoritarian impulses” in India while also lamenting a “decline of democracy.” Its nonsense. It’s not a decline in democracy it appears; it appears that India’s particular democracy is leading to a decline of secular liberalism. “The people” of India, it seems, may not be particularly interested a separation between church and state. Unless he can demonstrate that a majority of Indian citizens would actually prefer to have the government be neutral regarding Hinduism and Islam, the problem isn’t a lack of “democracy.”
I’m personally not a fan of theocracies, whether democratic or not. Just like I am not a fan of communism, whether democratic or not. Democratic processes have their place and virtue, but “democracy” isn’t holy and it doesn’t guarantee a virtuous society.