Futility of elections

There is an underlying sense that despite the ‘progressive’ discourse, the powerful classes are enriching themselves.

Demonstrations in the squares of Egypt or Tunisia are one thing, but protests on the streets of New York, Delhi, Ankara or Sao Paulo are another. The venting of long suppressed rage in the  former was variously described as Arab awakening or Arab 'Spring' with all the positive connotations that these words evoke.  With the latter, all noisy democracies priding themselves on the channels for free expression and dissent available to their citizens, there is less clarity as to what they represent. Is there a trend, or is each one sui generis and their frequency a mere happenstance?

In theory, citizens’ protests in democracies are signs of  grievances and are perfectly legitimate. If strong or persistent, such protests may alert the political class that attention needs to be paid to this or that grievance: inflation, unemployment,  minority rights, alienation of a caste/class, and possibly induce some course correction. By the very nature of democracies, they are not meant to coerce the government, not to speak of overthrowing it. If that is the intention, elections are the available option. Governments after all are supposed to reflect the will of the majority. Other channels are also available to address complaints: parliament, courts, commissions, tribunals, and media.  All this in theory.

So what is new in the protests that we are seeing?

To start with, in all of the protests in established democracies seen recently, the grievances themselves are diffuse rather than specific. Occupation Wall Street in the US was the most nebulous with the complaints centring around the privileged 1 per cent cornering all the riches and benefits to the detriment of the rest of the 99 per cent. The very real problems are a result of structural imbalances in the US economy: corporations are making huge profits but they are not creating new jobs; financial honchos earn obscene profits but those in manufacturing or blue collar jobs get squeezed;  the ‘innovator- whiz kids’ in technology or finance rule the universe, but those with hard earned college degrees struggle. The problems are all real, but they elude definition,  not to speak of resolution. It is not a surprise that the ‘Occupation movement’ petered out after a while. It signalled a problem, but led to no solutions.

The recent Brazilian protests have some similarities in terms of multiple complaints -- price rise, lack of quality in public services such as education and health, corruption in high places, and a privileged elite enthusing in mega projects like hosting the FIFA World Cup and Olympics, but insensitive to middle-class frustrations.

  In India, though the Anna Hazare and Kejrival movement started with a seemingly  specific demand about the Lokayukt,  it too lacked a definitive focus, developed a divisive agenda, and even more, became incapable of accepting realistic solutions.

No real change

In Turkey, led by a more authoritarian figure compared to the other cases, the ostensible reason was the plan to convert a public park into a shopping plaza and a tourist attraction. The act of protest itself was more significant than the proximate cause. Again at the end of it, the result was a dent in prime minister Erdogan's image, but without a real change on the ground. Different triggers then, but some broad similarities in brewing discontent.

  Second, all these movements have a  predominantly urban character as also a youth and a middle class constituency. It is possible that traditional categories such as farmers, workers and even minorities are attuned to the political and the electoral process, but the urban constituents of these protests are more impatient and cynical.  They have no faith in the conventional politics,  are searching for an alternative process  for their voices to weigh, without being clear as to what it might be.

Third, there is an underlying sense that despite the ‘progressive’ discourse, the powerful classes are enriching themselves and taking the silent middle classes for a ride. Dissertations are yet to be written analysing the sociological base of the protestors in each country, but a unifying theme is the feeling that elections alone are not enough. The protestors believe that the political classes, their representatives in theory,  are too far removed from their every day reality.  In India, Brazil and Turkey, all  three with the alluring label of ‘emerging powers,’ the ruling elite are believers in quantitative attributes -- GDP, rates of growth, world rankings, millions out of poverty, progress towards Millennium Development Goals etc.  The protestors are impatient with such parameters of progress. Their concern seems to be with the qualitative aspects of governance as in the quality of education, public hospitals, or with corruption in high places.

 Will these protests change the reality? It is too early to tell and the answer in each case may be different, but again Brazil gives us a clue. Led by a progressive leader who herself was a fire-brand protestor in her youth, also known for her steadfast anti corruption stance, president Gilma  Rouseff has responded imaginatively. She wants a referendum to enact laws to end the culture of impunity that has protected Brazilian politicians till now, bring in foreign doctors in large numbers to  fill the hospitals ( as Brazil may not have the numbers), and use the future massive oil revenues for better education and health. All promises so far, but her credibility is still high and she is at least listening.

Brazil will no doubt host its mega sports events, but it remains to be seen whether for the ordinary citizens, such events will be causes for flag waiving pride or for a sense of outrage -- as it was for us with the Commonwealth games.

(The writer is a former ambassador and is currently a visiting professor at Jamia Milia University)