Enduring the Mess: The Temptation and Risks of Abandoning Democracy

Democracy is messy. Generals, dictators, ayatollahs and Nobel laureates look and sound so different, virtuous and smooth. The countries that fall for the temptation of their apolitical promise are the ones that haven’t yet matured to endure the mess, heat and dust, and low points inevitable in a democracy. If you haven’t got that patience, you look for shortcuts. -Shekar Gupta.

Shekhar Gupta's statement captures a nuanced view of democracy, contrasting it with other forms of governance like dictatorships, military rule, or even theocratic systems led by figures like ayatollahs. He suggests that democracy is inherently "messy" because it is a system where multiple voices, interests, and perspectives are constantly in conflict, seeking compromise, and evolving. This messiness comes from the nature of democracy itself, where dissent, debate, and disagreement are common, as the power is derived from the people, who often have diverse and competing interests.

In contrast, Gupta mentions figures like generals, dictators, ayatollahs, and even Nobel laureates, representing systems where decision-making is often centralized and controlled by a single figure or a small group. These individuals often present a vision of leadership that seems "virtuous and smooth" because they offer solutions that appear to cut through the complexity and conflicts inherent in democratic governance. These leaders may appear decisive, efficient, and apolitical, promising order, stability, and prosperity. However, Gupta suggests that these promises are often illusory and only appealing to countries or populations that have not matured to handle the messiness of democracy.

The Apolitical Promise Gupta refers to the "apolitical promise" of these leaders. They often promise to transcend politics, portraying themselves as above the fray of partisan squabbles and inefficiencies. However, this is usually a trap. Such leaders, by centralizing power, often strip away the checks and balances that keep them accountable. Countries that have not yet experienced or embraced the full benefits of democratic governance may find these promises appealing, especially during times of crisis or instability when the democratic process seems slow or ineffective.

Maturity and Patience in Democracy Gupta implies that democracy requires a certain level of maturity from both the society and its citizens. This maturity includes understanding that democracy is not always efficient, that it is prone to messiness because it is designed to allow competing interests to have a say. The "heat and dust" of democracy refers to the inevitable conflicts, debates, and challenges that arise when diverse groups come together to govern themselves. Societies that are "mature" enough to handle these challenges do not seek shortcuts but understand that enduring the lows is part of the democratic process.

The Allure of Shortcuts For societies that lack this patience or experience with democracy, Gupta argues that the allure of shortcuts becomes tempting. Shortcuts here mean the quick fixes offered by authoritarian figures, who often promise to bypass the complexity of democracy in favor of a more streamlined, efficient, or stable rule. However, this often leads to a loss of individual freedoms, suppression of dissent, and long-term instability, even if it brings temporary order or progress.

In essence, Gupta is warning against the dangers of abandoning democracy because it is difficult and often frustrating. He suggests that while the alternatives may appear appealing in the short term, they do not offer the same long-term benefits as a mature, democratic society, where the messiness is part of the process of growth and progress.