The Coming of The 'Hot' Democracy

When a rigorous democratic process throws up someone like Donald Trump as one of the two people likely to become the most powerful person in the world, it is natural to take another look at the concept itself. Over the last few years, the democratic process seems to throw up choices, that would a few years earlier, have been possible only in the event of a coup. Something fundamental has changed about the way democracy is practiced.

 Democracy as a practice has been a mediated one- the voice of the individual was heard directly once every few years and then relayed by an elected representative. The will of the people framed the politics of the day, but it was sought infrequently and worked within a larger constitutional framework, which was developed by a few for the many.

 Opinion was regulated through a separate institution- the media, that strove to represent the ideals of democracy, without specifically worrying about representing the views of the public. The market too was meant to reflect the desires of consumers, but there were hardly any mechanisms to inject the voice of the consumer in business calculations; indeed, companies have to struggle to become ‘consumer-centric’ for it is not a natural instinct. The judiciary of course, looked after the interests of the people from a lofty and deliberately detached perch- it was meant to pay no heed to public opinion or passions.

 Almost all of the above have changed in some form. The increased role of the market in media has made it much more focused on leveraging its strengths for commercial purposes. It uses the license that it receives from society for its own purposes much more than it did in the past, where the idea of the larger good was more consciously a part of its mandate. Social media has given everyone with access to the internet a voice, and this has led to an unprecedented and peek into the minds of people.

 The democracy of today is thus a ‘hot’ democracy, an unmediated, volatile force that reacts quickly and responds sharply, with few restraints. Hot democracies are immediate, reactive, judgmental, demanding. Issues rise up like milk on the boil, and subside the same way. Issues get consumed through an intensely personal lens. Tantrums are frequent as are orgasmic eulogies. People matter, not issues. Impatience becomes a big virtue, and passion becomes a highly valued idea, one that justifies everything. Desires demand satisfaction. Anger flashes, then aggregates.

 Think of yesterday’s ‘cooler’ democracy as a wire that transported energy from the public to the state, but one that came clad in protective insulation of many kinds. What we are seeing today is the gradual stripping of this protective insulation. The energy that is democracy is no longer applied purposively to a point of calibrated usefulness- it scatters in all directions unharnessed for most part. In doing so, the institutions that were kept apart to provide scrutiny, oversight and had an ability to intervene and take corrective action are increasingly being fused together in a coalition of interests.

 The judiciary for instance today adopts a much more populist view, it intervenes in all ‘hot’ issues with an avidness that is striking. Its positions seem to betray a greater anxiety to align with popular mood and it seeks out a more visible and central role in public life. The shift in the orientation of media has been spoken of far too often to bear repetition. It magnifies the ‘hot’ nature of democracy by jettisoning the ideals of detachment, balance and perspective- it chooses instead to both compress and amplify events.

 Greater democratization has been a key characteristic of the digital era, and the impact of social media has been well documented, but the real change has been in the nature of this process of democratization. We are not only seeing more democracy, we are seeing more of a different kind of democracy. It is not only more direct, it is more fissile in nature. We are in effect practicing an unprotected form of democratic intercourse. The idea of the public too has changed- it is now a multitude of privates, the visible emergence of the individual as part of the public. In some sense, everyone is out in streets all the time, telling us what they think. And by seeing everyone else saying what they really feel, others are emboldened to express themselves with much less inhibition.

At one level, systems have to listen. In marketing, suddenly the voice of the consumer starts being heeded. Media gets off its high horse and starts tuning in to what its audience is interested in. Politicians become more publicly accountable. Individual injustices demand action, provided of course that they are deemed worthy of attention. These kind of shifts are visible in many different ways and have been widely celebrated. 

 But equally, along with the ability to be heard, and the power to make a difference comes the brute force of public will. Desire of any kind today is self-justifying by definition- it demands to be satisfied. Things that could not be said or even thought can now be shouted. Idealism is being replaced by an honest acknowledgement of one’s emotions- what matters is not that which must be professed but that which is genuinely desired.

 Democracy is presumed to be a desirable idea because of the way in which it has been historically imagined. Democracy when controlled and guided by an overarching framework of ideals produces results of one kind. In a ‘hot’ democracy, however, the naked and unadorned will of the people has a better chance of being converted into state action. Along with that comes the great danger that we pose to ourselves, of electrocuting ourselves with our own energy. Donald Trump is a sign that the repressed instincts of a large number of people now has an address. And Trump is only a part of what might come to pass. If we really can get what we want, then it all boils down to what lies buried deep inside our hearts. And on that front, the news may not be so good.

 (This is a slightly modified version of a piece that has appeared earlier in the Times of India)