Democracy and Dissent

Space for dissent is central to democratic societies. Truly liberal democracies will not only tolerate dissent but encourage it. Only when the right to dissent is guaranteed, citizens can genuinely participate in a democracy. This participation is the source of a society’s vitality and serves as a corrective balance for the ruling class’ biases. It also acts as an essential motivating force driving a society to engage in collective reflection and institutional reform.

The mode for expressing dissent can be many. While elections continue to be a periodic exercise in channelizing dissent to bring change in governance, it is not enough. There is a need to strengthen other modes of expression as well. Liberal democracies give their citizens not only the right to express their views but also the right to protest and express dissent against prevailing procedures and laws. While such protests are expected not to rely on violence and coercion, when institutions fail, it is imperative to hold protests to ensure accountability of institutions.

Democracies must provide multiple channels through which the public can express dissent. If there is no such space, guerilla like protests blooming everywhere should hardly come as a surprise. Dissenters should not be clubbed simply as law breakers and their views repressed forcefully. In fact a democracy’s success lies in its ability to balance different values. In such a set up when reason fails to deliver and the quest for power comes to dominate—protest against institutionalized authority may become a requirement.

However most democracies including India have done badly on this front.  There is a tendency to violently quell political dissent and physically threaten one’s opponents. Debate and discussions- the supposed hallmarks of democracy gives way to fist fights too soon. Political leaders have turned into cult figures, with their supporters vandalizing and threatening anybody who don’t show enough respect. The attacks on Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in Gujarat, and the continuous vandalism indulged by goons of different political hue, point to a general atmosphere of intolerance.

Violence or the threat of its implicit use will see us descend quickly into ungovernable chaos, which will take us towards fundamentalism and fascism, both of which are complete anathema to a civilized, multi-religious society that India claims to be. It will lead to a decline of democratic institutions which have been an achievement of the last few decades. While dissent is integral to democracy and must work as a feedback mechanism, violent outbursts spiraling out of control should be checked.

Despite many limitations with regard to available democratic space, the Indian state have seen dissent taking multiple forms. It has been non-violent and procedural manifesting itself as anti-incumbency during elections leading to regime change, it has been through Gandhian modes like sit-ins and hunger strikes. It has also been violent in some cases. In India, owing to a complicated history, democratic spaces have been scuttled from time to time with repressive laws. Dissent as a result have taken violent and even extreme forms.

While Irom Sharmaila’s 12 years old hunger strike failed to compel the Indian state to decide on the issue of repealing AFSPA, the death of Thangjam Manorama saw a unique protest in Manipur. Opposing the impunity that AFSPA gives Army to commit atrocities, elderly Manipuri women who were active in the political scenario, paraded naked to the Kangla Fort housing Army headquarters to protest against Manorama’s brutal rape and murder. They carried placards asking the Indian army to rape them. This protest shocked the entire nation and brought certain moral issues to the fore. However nothing concrete have been done to address issues of human rights abuse in Manipur. Cases of fake encounter, civilian casualties continue to filter in. But AFSPA remains.

Another unique protest in recent times have been the stone pelters’ movement in Jammu and Kashmir.  Starting in 2008 and taking an intense form by 2010, the unrest represents a conscious transition to an unarmed mass movement, one that poses a moral challenge to New Delhi’s military domination over the region. Heartrending spectacles of teenage boys defiantly hurling rocks at police and paramilitary forces and of mothers weeping besides the bodies of loved ones became common place.

As the sang bazan or stone pelters insolently took to the centre stage, the Central Government was forced to take into account on how to tackle this mode of protest. Educated teenagers, women taking to streets pointed to popular outrage against continued violation of human rights in the valley. This popular outrage if suppressed by force has the risk of fuelling separatist movements in the valley. The need is to address the deficit in justice in the valley.

Coming to Assam, Akhil Gogoi led Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti have led many protests from time to time. Starting with anti-big dam, it slowly ventured into other socio-political issues. Governments in Northeastern states often take authoritarian character and limit democratic spaces for protest. Within such limitations, KMSS tried to mobilize people against unjust activities of the ruling class.

One of their protests was about demanding land rights for those squatting in government land in Guwahati. Many have felt a need to relook on this demand. During this protest, on February 23, Pranab Bodo, a KMSS activist tried to self immolate in front of the secretariat. He died of severe burns. And Akhil Gogoi was arrested for abetting his death.

Self immolation as a mode of protest have been popularly associated with Tibet’s right to self determination. This extreme mode was taken because China denied Tibet any space for democratically placing its demands. However self immolation of Tibetan monks on a regular basis have also failed to be fruitful. As opposed to such a grave situation, one needs to ask Akhil Gogoi if he had exhausted all modes of protest to take up such an extreme mode. He was arrested and his arrest led to widespread protests by his supporters.

The role of leader in any movement is important. The responsibility of the leaders in channelizing dissent in a constructive way is huge. Leaders cannot get away with saying that a protest was undirected, spontaneous and hence out of control. Leaders must condemn use of spurious violence by their supporters.

Interestingly newer types of horizontal social movements like the Occupy Movement have actually opened up newer spaces for expressing dissent. The Occupiers in claiming their right to the city created new physical and political spaces for reasserting the power of the people. There is a newer use of public space to be the venue of participatory democracy. 

With elections around the corner, there is a need to strengthen multiple venues of participation in our democracy. Along with elections, fruitful use of spaces to ensure an atmosphere conducive to debate, discussion and expression of dissent without any fear should be a prerogative of all political actors.

(This article was first published in The Assam Tribune on 19th April, 2014)