Yearning for distant despot betrays democratic deficit

Yet another Onam is round the corner. The well known legend of a benevolent monarch in whose reign perfect equality, happiness and prosperity prevailed is reminded in Onam wishes. His reign was brought to an end by the divine feet pushing the King to Patala with the right to visit his subjects every year.

Leaving the legend being as it is, two pertinent questions emerge here. One is whether this perfect socio- economic condition is an abstraction so as to strive for something near it. Students of economics would recall the market structure called Perfect Competition, which exists only in pages of textbooks and not anywhere in the market.

The standard answer is that a perfect situation is placed as an abstract one so that something near it is achieved in actual situations. The ideal conditions during King Mahabali's reign could be one such thing. The second question is whether we reinforce this legend in our collective longing for a dictator or monarch, who is benevolent.

This needs deeper pondering. Democratic consciousness is alien to any kind of monarchy, autocracy and authoritarianism. Calling that benevolent is an act of escapism from the collective citizens' duty of participating in governance and need to strive for empowerment. 

Handing over this responsibility to a dictator or a monarch perceiving her or him as benevolent is against the grain of a literate (more than functional) and an enlightened society, which we take pride in claiming that we are.

A dictator is never alone. One totalitarian at the helm breeds hundreds of tinpot dictators at various layers of hierarchy. This will turn oppressive and weave cobwebs of fear turning into a social psychosis.

The costs of a dictatorship, even if the dictator at the helm is benevolent, far outweigh the benefits that can flow from it. Can we forget an interregnum of internal emergency in our glorious democratic tradition since independence?

Trains ran on time, Officials attended office punctually but there was no remedy, if the right to life was put in danger even by cutting edge functionary of the state. One retired bureaucrat, recently stated with pride that Malayalis love discipline and that is why they supported the emergency regime. According to him, custodial deaths during that period including the Rajan Case were normal occurrences during other times too. What extent the trivialising descended to is pathetic.

There have been custodial deaths during other times also. But during these times, no father had the misfortune of Prof Eachara Warrier, who could not even know what happened to his son and had to wait till emergency was lifted to file a Habeas Corpus petition. The silence of disciplining is awful and democracy with a bit of cacophony is preferable.

To preserve democracy for its intrinsic value, the citizens' collective has an arduous task of drawing lines as to what extent certain things can go. When we abdicate this role in civil society and long for a private sphere where our consumption can be enjoyed in seclusion, the longing for a dictatorship with a prayer that it be benevolent emerges.

In a consumerist and self centered citizenry, there is longing for vacating public sphere and eulogise this benevolence in dictatorship, which is nothing but a mirage in a desert. History has proved it for all large nations. City states are not to be taken as models for us. It is against the grain of a democratic society to run after this mirage. Oasis of benevolence cannot be found there.

A dictator is never alone. One totalitarian at the helm breeds hundreds of tinpot dictators at various layers of hierarchy. This will turn oppressive and weave cobwebs of fear turning into a social psychosis. The costs of a dictatorship, even if the dictator at the helm is benevolent, far outweigh the benefits that can flow from it.

(The author is a commentator on issues of Indian Federal Polity)