State Powers – Checks and Balances

In a relative equation between state and individual, the power balance is clearly tilted in favor of the individual in the West today. The ‘fundamental inalienable rights of man’ as envisioned by founders like Jefferson have come into being in several of the Western developed countries. Is it all because of democracy? Believing it to be so, democracy was implemented blindly in myriad countries. However, the results were totally different. Some nations like Iraq moved from repressive autocracy to regressive, repressive and anarchic democracy. Well, that is an extreme example but really developing world democracies just haven’t caught on and state versus individual equation is heavily tilted in favor of the state. So what is the difference?

There are several, first being the process to get there. In Charles Kupchan’s words, “it is worth keeping in mind how long it took for Europe to transition from the constitutionalism associated with the rise of its middle class to the liberal democracy that accompanied the rise of its working class”. Now what does this mean? In England for instance, Magna Carta was the first instrument that curtailed the powers of the king and mandated some rule of law way back in 1215 or so. This document was rescinded and revoked several times through the English history.  Then, about the 15^th century came the age of Scientific revolution, Renaissance and protestant reformation in continental Europe which really modernized these societies. One key catalyst for the change was the power of bourgeois to push back against the powers of the state. Typically, the wealthy classes have a lot of power potential which was unlocked during this period. They challenged the status quo as well as “led” the society in a different direction. The results were tremendous. This was also accompanied by market reforms which enabled wealth creation and led to the rise of a prosperous middle class. This class championed the rights of the common man. Only after centuries of reform, liberal democracy was introduced in the 20^th century with voting rights for all. By this time, 70% of the population was urban already. So democracy arrived in a well awakened society and was liberal.

Why does the bourgeois not push back against the powers of the state in developing world democracies? If you don’t call it defensive, one reason is that political power has already been leaked from them and placed in the hands of the poor majority whose daily life is a struggle for existence. Burdened with worries about putting food on the mat, you don’t expect them to lead any sort of reforms or awakening. However, having said that, the bourgeois still hold a lot of power in these states but that remains limited to their personal realm – you know in the sense of pursuing a good life personally. What is worse is that they all align themselves with certain political parties to enjoy further power, personally. But for the societies to modernize, the bourgeois have to get out of this mindset and start pushing back against state powers. The state is a mighty force but to be harnessed for the good of the common man. That happens best when the bourgeois push back against state powers.

Any unchecked power tends to corrupt. Even when there are elections, people elect party A or B who are pretty much a law unto themselves. So an enlightened bourgeois would push back against state powers and champion the rights of the common people. They would not all join political parties to gather and enjoy even more power. They also hold the key to understanding and empowering other institutions such that everybody is not a rubber stamp second fiddle to the elected autocrats.  Their role in social reforms and enlightenment can not be stressed enough. Media is also supposed to play a powerful role but due to heavy dependence on eyeball hunting, they tend to uphold status quo rather than really challenge it. Further it needs to be a partner in progress with an enlightened bourgeois who are yet sleeping. That missing tango between media and a self empowered bourgeois is the reason most developing world countries are not modern and progressive.

There are a lot of institutions in a country – the Judiciary, the police force, the Artists guild, the Bureaucracy, the Activists, Corporate bodies etc. all of them have to gain significant autonomy and counter check powers of the state for ideal governance. Now, to the contrary, there is a mistaken notion that if you want to do some good to the country you have to join politics. That is not true. Politics is one kind of arena meant for the steely hearted and no doubt governance is not an easy task. Politicians also do work hard and manage conflicting ideals. But all the power of a state can not gravitate towards elected (or otherwise) ruling class. This power needs to be checked by strengthening other power centers in a society as mentioned above. They have a lot of latent power - they just don't know it and don't exercise it. And once again the missing powerful tango between an awake bourgeois and an enlightened media is what may be holding these societies / nations back.