Democracy in the age of free thinking, digitisation

Democracy — where the power lies with the masses — as the wise old Greeks envisioned it, is a theory that underscored the need for the emancipation of the poorest, but the strongest. Because only the strongest will go to great lengths for their happiness. A general curiosity surrounding India, the most populous democracy in the world, sets one thinking on its current state of politics. With the Narendra Modi-led BJP’s victory in May last year, the political opinion of the masses is highly divided and polarised.

To share is a basic human value, say sociologists and religionists alike. But, the empowerment of a section of the mass, which would otherwise not be heard, is a merit of today’s digitalised, ‘smaller’ world.

Whether Indian society is now modernist, or post-modernist, or reformist (or anything else) is a moot point. However, with an increase in dissemination and sharing of ideas, thoughts and theories, information trickles quickly from the top to the bottom —and many a time from the bottom to the top (evident in the way the Aam Aadmi Party used social media in its campaign). For that — and may be only that — the AAP must be credited for empowering the unheard of so much that they are now being heard. The use of holograms by the BJP and the Internet by AAP in the 2014 elections is a harbinger of a new age in Indian politics — where thoughts are shared freely. This makes India a truly ‘democratic-socialist’ society, as BR Ambedkar envisioned it. However, this structure is liable to erode if the Centre’s decision of having photographs of voters on ballot papers, materialises. According to the election commission, the idea will most likely be put into practice. However, a writ petition on the subject is pending in the Supreme Court.

The secret to a “powerful democratic system” is in the anonymity of voters. That is the beauty of this great social system that gives citizens the “right to freedom”. It pushes the government to know which way the tide is flowing. Over the ages, with modernisation, democracy has evolved into something where the ancient l’argent is minted and the power lies with the “power”ful. May be this is Ambedkar’s version of democratic socialism. But, digitalisation puts this system in jeopardy.

From an international perspective, the loopholes in digitising “top secret” information by governments came to light with the controversies surrounding Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. So, it would be logical to ask: Why then would the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton use private e-mails for government work, an issue which is currently being investigated by the Benghazi Committee in the United States. There is no doubt that digitalisation complicates the democratic structure.

Pondering on democracy led Aristotle to say: “Man is by nature a social animal... Society is something that precedes the individual. ” Centuries later Karl Marx expounded on the theory of Socialism (or the now sullied ‘Communism’), dividing society into the Proletariat and Bourgeosie.

Though, apparently different, the two theories are the same. They give man a role beyond his individuality. A role that places him sufficiently somewhere in the social structure. However, the failure of Marxism is in that it does not chalk out more ‘individualised’ roles in the social architecture.

With the evolution of man, social theories have also evolved. However, the fast-paced ‘technology revolution’ of this century has put sociologists in a tizzy. A true free thinker can only hope that in this sociological debate, democracy will win. May free thinkers prevail.

The author is a senior sub-editor with dna