Mayank Shekhar: Should we question democracy?

The most erudite can be swayed by numbers alone. Representation pic

The only reason a semi-circle of well-connected writers, and well-paid editors, seemed to loathe Chetan Bhagat so vehemently is because he is so widely read, perhaps even loved, and they aren't, I (rightly) thought - standing in the periphery of that semi-circle at a literary fest after-party, over half a decade ago. With that bitchy conversation over-valuing Bhagat's national impact going nowhere, I stepped out to grab a drink.

Bhagat was at the corner of the bar at Indigo, where a big-shot industrialist, now I forget if it was Anand Mahindra or Ness Wadia (and that's not even the point), somberly walked up to him to check on what's going on in Indian politics. His vishesh tippani followed. Now, where to go?

The most erudite can be swayed by numbers alone, in this case the number of Bhagat's English young-lit readers. Do these numbers always signify democracy? It could produce the opposite effect. Let's look at politics in a bit, but we do know a little about mass news, entertainment, although it's hard to tell one from the other.

They're crafted around second-guessing audience's supposed tastes, often where one thing works, automatically everybody else follows, and therefore an entire industry, over time, step by step, splicing out everything that doesn't fit into the larger, determined hole, produces a mainstream media that looks the same - across. Pick up the most popular radio, television stations, websites, newspapers, or even movies (creating stars, or special effects), and you'll know. One size must fit all. Your circus, my monkeys. It's a numbers' game. And numbers can be gamed.

Is politics that aims for more complicated arithmetic and much larger audiences, another field that defies free-market, with greater competition only inhibiting choice, and progressively screwing up quality? Survey the national scene. Examine its broad product categories that, weeding out the highest common multiple over time, every political party has conveniently fit into, in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator: Nehru/Gandhi, Sangh, Ambedkar, Lohia, Left (and those opposing them, of course). Grand promises of abolishing poverty (1971), ‘acche din' (2014) etc, although well-meaning, are mere side-shows, and tag-lines.

Every politician, ideally, must check one box, holding uniformly same and sometimes inter-changeable opinions on a variety of complex issues. That's what you need/scream to lord over vast public resources/institutions. Target in place. Hit-job ordered. Unverified assertions can be positioned as "alternate narratives". Who's there to check? Distraction complete; design is set.

Groups vote en masse. Constantly pitting one against the other (rather than making any real conversations) can ensure about 30 per cent "polarised" constituents get cornered in an assured direction (a "vote bank"), promising the loaded party a win. It's not even about the majority. And you need only one more than even a crore votes to grab a seat (all others votes being wholly redundant as a result).

Educational qualifications, past similar experience, passing tough exams/interviews that test competence, are for minions entrusted with growing/protecting a small company's pocket change. If you're part of none of the above cult groups, the newbie Aam Aadmi Party, for instance, you do appear like an "anarchist". It's easy to be portrayed as one. This is basically show-business, albeit of relatively not such good-looking people.

How did we get here? Because Ambedkar, the father of Indian Constitution, said we would. If, for one, he ironically stated, we fell prey to ‘personality cults', or quoting John Stuart Mill, "lay liberties at the feet of even a great man, trusting him with powers which enable him to subvert institutions." Two, if political democracy did not follow actual social democracy on the ground (unqualified liberty, equality, fraternity, for all). It didn't. So where do the regular folk stand? Between a rock, and a hard place. But you must pick a side. It makes life simpler.

And you must vote. Have to vote. You must vote. It's your right. Your privilege. This is democracy (world's largest). They go to vote - for one, or perhaps, against the other. As they did in Karnataka. In a tri-partite fight, the party with the lowest number of seats, steps in to form a government, with the help of the party they fought against. The one with the highest number of seats looks at how they could "poach" from the other two, whose MLAs are locked up! It doesn't matter what they fought for, or against.

The popular television anchor with the second highest English news ratings asks the gentleman from the scavenging team how they would manage the numbers. Arrey! He names his captain; and winks, sort of. They both laugh out loud, in public, on TV, simultaneously. This is supposed to be "horse-trading" to form a "stable" government.

The highest read Indian English writer, Bhagat, weighs in with a pragmatic tweet, that must be seen as our form of public intellectualism - calling horse-trading an "art form". Yes, the election is over. Another will follow. The voter looks puzzled. Or maybe doesn't. Now let's just frickin' move on, right. No, you wanna question this? Oh.

Mayank Shekhar attempts to make sense of mass culture. He tweets @mayankw14 Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com

Catch up on all the latest Mumbai news, crime news, current affairs, and also a complete guide on Mumbai from food to things to do and events across the city here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates